Gene Simmons "No new iconic artist has emerged since 1988."

Zungle

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
6,995
Reaction score
12,763

cybermgk

“Happiness is the most insidious prison of all"
Gold Supporting Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
15,281
Reaction score
21,868
If you were around for the first run of MTV in the early-mid eighties, that video was hugely talked about as ground-breaking. Nothing like it had ever been done. I consider such milestones as iconic. I consider A-Ha's contribution to music videos as iconic.

I get this for a definition of "iconic":

"a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration"

In the just-past embryonic stage of music videos at the time, their efforts were (IMO) a representative symbol of excellence, of things to come. It was representative of a new way of doing things. So yeah in that sense, iconic.

Good enough for me. Perhaps not good enough for you.
The song, itself is extremely representative of Pop music of that era as well.
 

Roberteaux

Super Mod
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
31,613
Reaction score
148,078
I think that the reason this thread has been so unruly is because of the consistent and nearly continuous misuse and misinterpretation of the word "iconic".

That started with Mr. Simmons, I'd say, though I've noted quite a bit of the same stuff coming from various other members in this thread as well.

To paraphrase something Rousseau once wrote, it is very difficult for people to communicate with one another without defining the prevalent terms that will be in use.

In this case, the troublesome term is the word "iconic". Most of the back-and-forth in this thread can be linked directly to a lack of commonality whereas the definition of "iconic" is concerned.

****************
One of the bigger problems is that the word "iconic" is a word that is currently bandied about in a haphazard fashion in quite a few media outlets. It's one of the current buzzwords that people use as an umbrella term, while actually using it incorrectly.

It's a lot like the word "awesome", which is used a lot to indicate something that has some strong positive virtue or appeal... but which is not, in fact, actually awe inspiring. Another word used the same way is "amazing".

I can think of a lot of other words that are similarly misused. Usually, the words are either watered down-- as in the case of the word "awesome"-- while at other times connotations that are not actually correctly applied to a term are applied nonetheless.

"Iconic" is a word that tends to go astray in the latter manner. People like to add shit to that word.

***************
So, what does the word "iconic" really mean? To find that out, we should consult a dictionary.

For this post, I went with Merriam-Webster. I could have gone with Cambridge, but didn't because this is a US-based website. But as it is, the Cambridge-Oxford definition is (as usual) at least a kissin' cousin to the US definition... when it's not identical, that is.

So, here's what the adjective "iconic" really means:

1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon;

2a : widely recognized and well-established;

2b : widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence.

****************
Now, other members have heaped all kinds of connotations on the word "iconic" that are simply not part of the word's definition, despite widespread overuse and incorrect use of the word that might lead us to believe those connotations are correctly applied.

The connotations that are usually (incorrectly) assigned to this particular word, iconic, are usually attachments that provide a more grandiose scope in meaning than what's actually correctly implied by the word.

For instance, to be "iconic" an artist need not be innovative, or some kind of game-changer in his or her field of endeavor, or some sort of social catalyst.

Instead, the artist merely needs to be widely recognized and well-established.

I will not argue one way or the other concerning the idea of "distinctive excellence" because appreciation of any of the fine arts is too subjective a matter to be addressed in a fully logical fashion.

But still, to say that somebody such as, say, Kurt Cobain was not "iconic" is not logical to those who actually use the word correctly. There was nothing cogent or persuasive in what Gene Simmons had to say.

After all, Cobain sold millions of recordings, and thanks to MSM, even people who never heard the first bit of Nirvana's music had heard of Kurt Cobain... and that's even before he capped himself.

You don't make the cover of Time magazine without being widely recognized elsewhere first.

And as people continue to listen to his music, I guess we could say that he's a well-established (if long since expired) kind of musician.

I could name a bunch of others, but then: a lot of 'em have already been named.

****************
Really, if Gene had simply said that he didn't like anything recorded after 1988, or even that he thought that everybody since then has sucked ass, I would have just shrugged.

Hell, River once told us that he thought that everything sucked after 1972, and nobody raised an eyebrow! :laugh2:

--R :p
 
Last edited:

Zungle

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
6,995
Reaction score
12,763
I think that the reason this thread has been so unruly is because of the consistent and nearly continuous misuse and misinterpretation of the word "iconic".

That started with Mr. Simmons, I'd say, though I've noted quite a bit of the same stuff coming from various other members in this thread as well.

To paraphrase something Rousseau once wrote, it is very difficult for people to communicate with one another without defining the prevalent terms that will be in use.

In this case, the troublesome term is the word "iconic". Most of the back-and-forth in this thread can be linked directly to a lack of commonality whereas the definition of "iconic" is concerned.

****************
One of the bigger problems is that the word "iconic" is a word that is currently bandied about in a haphazard fashion in quite a few media outlets. It's one of the current buzzwords that people use as an umbrella term, while actually using it incorrectly.

It's a lot like the word "awesome" which is used a lot to indicate something that has some strong positive virtue or appeal... but which is not, in fact, actually awe inspiring. Another word used the same way is "amazing".

I can think of a lot of other words that are similarly misused. Usually, the words are either watered down-- as in the case of the word "awesome"-- while at other times connotations that are not actually correctly applied to a term are applied nonetheless.

Iconic is a word that tends to go astray in the latter manner. People like to add shit to that word.

***************
So, what does the word "iconic" really mean? To find that out, we should consult a dictionary.

For this post, I went with Merriam-Webster. I could have gone with Cambridge, but didn't because this is a US-based website. But as it is, the Cambridge-Oxford definition is (as usual) at least a kissin' cousin to the US definition... when it's not identical, that is.

So, here's what the adjective "iconic" really means:

1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon;

2a : widely recognized and well-established;

2b : widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence.

****************
Now, other members have heaped all kinds of connotations on the word "iconic" that are simply not part of the word's definition, despite widespread over use and incorrect use of the word.

The connotations that are usually (incorrectly) assigned to this particular word, iconic, are usually attachments that provide a more grandiose scope in meaning than what's actually correctly implied by the word.

For instance, to be "iconic" an artist need not be innovative, or some kind of game-changer in his or her field of endeavor, or some sort of social catalyst.

Instead, the artist merely needs to be widely recognized and well-established.

I will not argue one way or the other concerning the idea of "distinctive excellence" because appreciation of any of the fine arts is too subjective a matter to be addressed in a fully logical fashion.

But still, to say that somebody such as, say, Kurt Cobain was not "iconic" is not logical to those who actually use the word correctly. There was nothing cogent or persuasive in what Gene Simmons had to say.

After all, Cobain sold millions of recordings, and thanks to MSM, even people who never heard the first bit of Nirvana's music had heard of Kurt Cobain... and that's even before he capped himself.

You don't make the cover of Time magazine without being widely recognized elsewhere first.

And as people continue to listen to his music, I guess we could say that he's a well-established (if long since expired) kind of musician.

I could name a bunch of others, but then: a lot of 'em have already been named.

****************
Really, if Gene had simply said that he didn't like anything recorded after 1988, or even that he thought that everybody since then has sucked ass, I would have just shrugged.

Hell, River once told us that he thought that everything sucked after 1972, and nobody raised an eyebrow! :laugh2:

--R :p
That my friend was an Iconic post.........

And far too logical by the way...........
 

cybermgk

“Happiness is the most insidious prison of all"
Gold Supporting Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
15,281
Reaction score
21,868
So Mr simmons

See Also Grunge 90s, MANY iconic groups from then

A whole bunch of new metal in the beginning of this Millennium, some iconic groups.
 

Zungle

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
6,995
Reaction score
12,763
Let us also not forget....in our small North American minds.......

Europe, Japan and many countries possess they're own "Icons"......
 

cybermgk

“Happiness is the most insidious prison of all"
Gold Supporting Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
15,281
Reaction score
21,868
I think that the reason this thread has been so unruly is because of the consistent and nearly continuous misuse and misinterpretation of the word "iconic".

That started with Mr. Simmons, I'd say, though I've noted quite a bit of the same stuff coming from various other members in this thread as well.

To paraphrase something Rousseau once wrote, it is very difficult for people to communicate with one another without defining the prevalent terms that will be in use.

In this case, the troublesome term is the word "iconic". Most of the back-and-forth in this thread can be linked directly to a lack of commonality whereas the definition of "iconic" is concerned.

****************
One of the bigger problems is that the word "iconic" is a word that is currently bandied about in a haphazard fashion in quite a few media outlets. It's one of the current buzzwords that people use as an umbrella term, while actually using it incorrectly.

It's a lot like the word "awesome" which is used a lot to indicate something that has some strong positive virtue or appeal... but which is not, in fact, actually awe inspiring. Another word used the same way is "amazing".

I can think of a lot of other words that are similarly misused. Usually, the words are either watered down-- as in the case of the word "awesome"-- while at other times connotations that are not actually correctly applied to a term are applied nonetheless.

"Iconic" is a word that tends to go astray in the latter manner. People like to add shit to that word.

***************
So, what does the word "iconic" really mean? To find that out, we should consult a dictionary.

For this post, I went with Merriam-Webster. I could have gone with Cambridge, but didn't because this is a US-based website. But as it is, the Cambridge-Oxford definition is (as usual) at least a kissin' cousin to the US definition... when it's not identical, that is.

So, here's what the adjective "iconic" really means:

1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon;

2a : widely recognized and well-established;

2b : widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence.

****************
Now, other members have heaped all kinds of connotations on the word "iconic" that are simply not part of the word's definition, despite widespread overuse and incorrect use of the word that might lead us to believe those connotations are correctly applied.

The connotations that are usually (incorrectly) assigned to this particular word, iconic, are usually attachments that provide a more grandiose scope in meaning than what's actually correctly implied by the word.

For instance, to be "iconic" an artist need not be innovative, or some kind of game-changer in his or her field of endeavor, or some sort of social catalyst.

Instead, the artist merely needs to be widely recognized and well-established.

I will not argue one way or the other concerning the idea of "distinctive excellence" because appreciation of any of the fine arts is too subjective a matter to be addressed in a fully logical fashion.

But still, to say that somebody such as, say, Kurt Cobain was not "iconic" is not logical to those who actually use the word correctly. There was nothing cogent or persuasive in what Gene Simmons had to say.

After all, Cobain sold millions of recordings, and thanks to MSM, even people who never heard the first bit of Nirvana's music had heard of Kurt Cobain... and that's even before he capped himself.

You don't make the cover of Time magazine without being widely recognized elsewhere first.

And as people continue to listen to his music, I guess we could say that he's a well-established (if long since expired) kind of musician.

I could name a bunch of others, but then: a lot of 'em have already been named.

****************
Really, if Gene had simply said that he didn't like anything recorded after 1988, or even that he thought that everybody since then has sucked ass, I would have just shrugged.

Hell, River once told us that he thought that everything sucked after 1972, and nobody raised an eyebrow! :laugh2:

--R :p
Under that definition, Nickelback qualifies under 2a
 

MikeyTheCat

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
21,247
Reaction score
39,145
A-Ha's "Take on Me" was an iconic video in 1984-85. The mixture of grease-pencil art and film was indeed iconic.
My now wife and I went to a movie back then and the video/film for Take on Me was played right before the main feature. To see it for the first time on the big screen was just incredible, and iconic.

For me a band is iconic if they have a sound, a look and influence those around them. Just a good album isn't enough.
Floyd didn't have a look but they had their shows.

Duran Duran was another iconic band that melded video, music and fashion.
The print of this that we bought in the 1980s is going up over my new bar when it comes in.


These days I don't see artists influencing as much as reflecting.

Billy was/is also iconic.
 

HardCore Troubadour

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
11,181
Reaction score
11,201
I also think this is a great post and makes too much sense in the context of things, however, I don't think for a minute that the thread was unruly because of it, the thread was unruly because it really never was about Gene or the quote to begin with...:rofl:Bunch-a-Heathens

I remember River saying that!!

I think that the reason this thread has been so unruly is because of the consistent and nearly continuous misuse and misinterpretation of the word "iconic".

That started with Mr. Simmons, I'd say, though I've noted quite a bit of the same stuff coming from various other members in this thread as well.

To paraphrase something Rousseau once wrote, it is very difficult for people to communicate with one another without defining the prevalent terms that will be in use.

In this case, the troublesome term is the word "iconic". Most of the back-and-forth in this thread can be linked directly to a lack of commonality whereas the definition of "iconic" is concerned.

****************
One of the bigger problems is that the word "iconic" is a word that is currently bandied about in a haphazard fashion in quite a few media outlets. It's one of the current buzzwords that people use as an umbrella term, while actually using it incorrectly.

It's a lot like the word "awesome" which is used a lot to indicate something that has some strong positive virtue or appeal... but which is not, in fact, actually awe inspiring. Another word used the same way is "amazing".

I can think of a lot of other words that are similarly misused. Usually, the words are either watered down-- as in the case of the word "awesome"-- while at other times connotations that are not actually correctly applied to a term are applied nonetheless.

"Iconic" is a word that tends to go astray in the latter manner. People like to add shit to that word.

***************
So, what does the word "iconic" really mean? To find that out, we should consult a dictionary.

For this post, I went with Merriam-Webster. I could have gone with Cambridge, but didn't because this is a US-based website. But as it is, the Cambridge-Oxford definition is (as usual) at least a kissin' cousin to the US definition... when it's not identical, that is.

So, here's what the adjective "iconic" really means:

1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon;

2a : widely recognized and well-established;

2b : widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence.

****************
Now, other members have heaped all kinds of connotations on the word "iconic" that are simply not part of the word's definition, despite widespread overuse and incorrect use of the word that might lead us to believe those connotations are correctly applied.

The connotations that are usually (incorrectly) assigned to this particular word, iconic, are usually attachments that provide a more grandiose scope in meaning than what's actually correctly implied by the word.

For instance, to be "iconic" an artist need not be innovative, or some kind of game-changer in his or her field of endeavor, or some sort of social catalyst.

Instead, the artist merely needs to be widely recognized and well-established.

I will not argue one way or the other concerning the idea of "distinctive excellence" because appreciation of any of the fine arts is too subjective a matter to be addressed in a fully logical fashion.

But still, to say that somebody such as, say, Kurt Cobain was not "iconic" is not logical to those who actually use the word correctly. There was nothing cogent or persuasive in what Gene Simmons had to say.

After all, Cobain sold millions of recordings, and thanks to MSM, even people who never heard the first bit of Nirvana's music had heard of Kurt Cobain... and that's even before he capped himself.

You don't make the cover of Time magazine without being widely recognized elsewhere first.

And as people continue to listen to his music, I guess we could say that he's a well-established (if long since expired) kind of musician.

I could name a bunch of others, but then: a lot of 'em have already been named.

****************
Really, if Gene had simply said that he didn't like anything recorded after 1988, or even that he thought that everybody since then has sucked ass, I would have just shrugged.

Hell, River once told us that he thought that everything sucked after 1972, and nobody raised an eyebrow! :laugh2:

--R :p
 

BornToLooze

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
817
Reaction score
1,341
Yep...

Steve Vai was actually a few years ahead of them and used them on a couple albums.....

But Vai credits Korn for bringing them into the mainstream .....

Cool little read...


I know, but from what I remember, (and I could be wrong, I haven't listened to his stuff in a while,) but I don't remember any of his stuff as being obviously a 7 string song.
 

MikeyTheCat

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
21,247
Reaction score
39,145
I will admit, KISS, original recipe, are icons.
Alice is iconic.
Aerosmith is iconic.

I just don't think the better new bands today can develop to be as iconic because the industry isn't about building bands and solo artists as much as it is about producers and publishing. It was always about that but now they've figured out how to minimize the artists with a few exceptions.
 

Roberteaux

Super Mod
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
31,613
Reaction score
148,078
Under that definition, Nickelback qualifies under 2a
Yep.

Note that nothing in the definition says that a given individual has to appreciate an artist for the adjective "iconic" to be correctly applied to his or her case.

That's why I didn't bother with definition #2b... though Nickelback is a group that is routinely scoffed at on this site, they have nonetheless sold something like 50 million albums... which definitely makes them prolific enough for #2a.

But I ain't touchin' that thing in 2b! :shock:

--R :thumb:
 

Roberteaux

Super Mod
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
31,613
Reaction score
148,078
I remember River saying that!!
:rofl:

OMG, I was laughing my ass off at that!

And IINM, it was in a thread just like this one... where somebody wanted to slag somebody else or something, and then things got all technical...

And then River tells everybody they're all nuts... everything sucked after 1972! :laugh2:

Glad you remember that bit!

--R :applause:
 


Latest Threads



Top