Lefsetz vs Simmons
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A remarkable fight broke out this week. I didn’t witness it physically, my entire understanding of this fight has been based around emails, blogs and YouTube. But it’s a fight that truly fascinated me.
I want to get to my commentary as quickly as possible, so if you're interested in finding out more about the warring parties, here is some information on Bob Lefsetz and Gene Simmons (although, really, no self respecting child of the 80's should need a wiki entry about Simmons).
The trouble began at the Canadian Music Week (CMW) forum in Toronto. Essentially, CMW is a forum attended by artists and industry figures which, amongst other things, is designed to help up and coming musicians determine exactly how best to survive the machinations of the music industry.
A perfect time, it would seem, for the presentation of new ideas and business models, of which Lefsetz is a keen proponent.
Also present at CMW was Mr Simmons who, in partnership with the major label behemoth Universal Music Group, has created a new record label aimed at finding, signing and grooming new talent with the intention of breaking these acts on, I would guess, a very large scale (think: KISS).
Simmons used his chance to speak at CMW to trot out a rather shameless and in-your-face advertisement for his new record label which, probably due to the fact that it is tied in with Universal, is structured suspiciously like an old record label.
Lefsetz, who was present at CMW, and during Simmons' sales pitch, was outraged.
Aghast at what he was witnessing, Lefsetz reacted by sending his (not insignificant) mailing list a furious post, lambasting Simmons for using the platform as nothing more than a self-selling ploy.
Gene then responded, in a rather petulant and angry manner, to Lefsetz's outburst. Gene’s email response was forwarded on to Lefsetz who then re-posted it to his mailing list. The fury then rose to fever pitch, culminating in a live debate at CMW between the two.
It got very nasty, very quickly, but behind the salvos, there were actually some pertinent questions being raised (at least by Lefsetz - Simmons seemed more intent on firing personal insults than engaging in any kind of reasoned debate).
Superficially, the debate revolved around the old business model (Simmons) versus the new business model (Lefsetz). But the actual anger and animosity came from somewhere else entirely. And I’m not sure either party realised it at the time.
So, this blog entry is about the themes I drew out personally, rather than a blow by blow analysis of the fight itself.
I had originally intended to say that I felt both Lefsetz and Simmons were missing the actual point, that the argument was not actually about what it appeared to be about.
However, on the morning I drafted this blog entry, Lefsetz appeared to see the light:
Turns out that Mr. Simmons generates as much animosity as love. You’d think a platinum-selling band would garner more kudos, but the degree of hatred towards KISS is staggering, a great deal of it based on Mr. Simmons’ personality.
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.
Here, Lefsetz admits there are two camps. He recognises that there is a vast gulf between himself and his supporters, and Simmons and Simmons’ supporters. Yet in the full post, he still sounds quietly incensed, and I find it hard to fault him.
You only need to watch the beginning of the live debate to get it.
Simmons is an offensive character. His money-driven brutality, his bullying, and his complete inability to hold a mirror to his own soul is frighteningly redolent of the most vicious elements of American political life (a point noted by Lefsetz).
Still, like any wily political animal, he exists and he succeeds and he prospers - as he constantly reminds anyone who will listen.
Despite this, I'm not sure how relevant his actual character is to the debate. It's not simply that Simmons is, in Lefsetz's words, an "asshole", but that Simmons is engaged in a game that, although it involves music, is not really about music at all.
Simmons is not pushing music; he is pushing entertainment. And what is actually being fought out here between Lefsetz and Simmons seems to me to be a battle of ideologies, not just opinions, which could be summarised as Entertainment versus Art.
Here is what I consider the distinction to be, as it relates to music.
Entertainment is produced for two reasons: to entertain (obviously) and to make money. The actual content, message and meaning are not nearly as relevant as the investment, construction and marketing that go into making this product a necessity. There is some potential to predict what financial rewards will be reaped and to invest accordingly. And should the product either outlive or disprove its usefulness, the creators behind it will dump it, and look for another.
Art, on the other hand, is not created for profit. It is not even created for a specific reason or purpose. And although it sometimes makes money, this is not necessarily related to its actual value or importance. It is created out of air, from ideas and emotions. And unlike entertainment, it is not designed to do anything except exist and speak to people, which is both its difficulty (it is very hard to sell) and its saving grace (it is unique, rare and timeless).
Deciding where you stand on these ideas is important, especially if you intend to devote your internal life to the pursuit of either one. Facing up to the choice is something I did very early on, but even now, I struggle with it on a daily basis.
If I insist that what I do is pure art, and deny that it has any component of entertainment, if I claim that I do not in any way want to "profit" (i.e. make a subsistence living) from it, I'll likely be damaged by the cold realities of what I do and how it fares in what is, unfortunately, a physical world driven mainly by commerce.
By the same token, if I pass it off as nothing more than trivial entertainment and ignore the gravity and importance of it as art, I'll be in danger of producing weak, banal and boring music. Some people might consider that I do that anyway, but for the purposes of this argument, let’s just assume I don’t.
It’s a difficult thing to come to terms with, but I still think you have to make the choice. Ideally, you need to try and strike some decent balance between the two.
I'm quite pleased, in that regard, to be able to describe myself - predominantly - as an artist. And in saying that, I don’t see this position as higher or lower than any other role in life, nor more or less noble, or something to hide behind.
I'm neither ashamed or proud of it. It is simply, for me, a fact.
And going back to the original topic of this post, the war of words between Lefsetz and Simmons, I'm also pleased that Simmons' attitude doesn't make me at all angry. To get angry at Simmons seems pointless.
Despite that, I can understand why others might get angry. I can understand why Lefsetz was pissed off. It wasn’t that he himself felt cheated, but that he felt Simmons was short changing those who actually do believe in the exhortations of KISS, those of us who really do want to rock ‘n’ roll all night, and party every day.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, anybody who thinks that rock 'n' roll is about sticking it to The Man is seriously deluded. The idea that rock 'n' roll, as an ethos or a lifestyle, has anything to offer people in this day and age I find totally redundant.
My reasoning for this is that everything that rock 'n' roll initially stood for - rebellion, wildness, change, non-conformity - has already been distilled, refined, market researched, packaged up and sold back to the masses in the form of jeans, shoes, phones - and of course music - for decades now and at massively inflated prices.
And this is where Simmons and his new record label re-enter the picture.
Simmons wants to uphold this tradition. Simmons, the businessman and the entertainer, is adamant that this controlled branding of art will continue. And being partnered with Universal Music Group, it is highly likely that it will.
But will it stand the test of time? Can it survive in this new and untested environment?
Not according to Lefsetz. He wants none of it and furthermore, he warns Simmons that this kind of manufactured product will not last, that it is, ultimately, a very bad business decision:
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.
Is Lefsetz right? Probably. Art is not about manufacture, and art which is manufactured is not built to last.
Does Simmons care? Probably not. He's in the business of manufacturing entertainment and in that business, power, cynicism and arrogance are strengths.
Because of this insurmountable barrier, I can’t see a clear winner in this debate. I’m not sure what, if anything, was achieved.
Still, the questions it raises are vitally important. Not just for the creators of music, but for anyone who listens to music.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s important for anyone who values art at all.
We all have to ask ourselves which vision of the world we’d prefer, which mode of thinking we’d like to see as predominant and what kinds of art we’d like to consume.
Manufactured, production-line clones? Or unique, rare, unheard voices?
I know it doesn’t seem all that important, especially when you have two grown men verbally hacking away at each other, but these things do matter. They make a difference and they have an effect.
It is, in the final reckoning, a question of soul.
P.S. A recent reader used StumbleUpon to track and review the last blog post and made note of the fact that there is no option to comment on the posts in this blog.
It's not that I'm trying to create a dictatorship, but rather that we ran out of money when we were developing the website, so comments were ousted.
If you're desperate to comment, or just want to express an opinion, e-mail me and I'll publish it here.