Do you think we will see a new Styx Album in 2008?

[styxdudebrandon]

Well, do you???

Back into lurk mode for me!
Talk to you guys later.

[bugsymalone]

Well, do you???

Back into lurk mode for me!
Talk to you guys later.

They have already said there won't be one. What? You don't believe them?

Bugsy

[ChicagoSTYX]

No, I don’t think we will ever see a new album as we know it from most of the artists we grew up with. Check out the main page on this site and read what Gene Simmons has to say about the record industry. I think we will get some new music from Styx this coming year but it will be something you download and not pick up at Best Buy. Just my opinion.

[elmotano]

Well, do you???

Back into lurk mode for me!
Talk to you guys later.

They have already said there won't be one. What? You don't believe them?

Bugsy

Where have they said this? I must have missed it. I know I have heard them say they are working on new material. Now if this literal and we are talking "album" as in an LP, well that's not happening. But, there will be new material out in 2008, again, unless something has changed in their plan.

[Blue Falcon]

Sure, they'll either put out another Greatest Hits package (with 75% of the songs written by "their former keyboardist") or another live album with 8-10 "new" versions of the same crap they've been playing for years.

[bugsymalone]

Where have they said this? I must have missed it. I know I have heard them say they are working on new material. Now if this literal and we are talking "album" as in an LP, well that's not happening. But, there will be new material out in 2008, again, unless something has changed in their plan.

That was what I was referring to, and assumed that was what the OP meant. He did say album, so I assumed he meant a physical CD and not individual tracks released for download.


Bugsy

[elmotano]

Sure, they'll either put out another Greatest Hits package (with 75% of the songs written by "their former keyboardist") or another live album with 8-10 "new" versions of the same crap they've been playing for years.

Who are we talking about here?

[gr8dane]

Where have they said this? I must have missed it. I know I have heard them say they are working on new material. Now if this literal and we are talking "album" as in an LP, well that's not happening. But, there will be new material out in 2008, again, unless something has changed in their plan.

That was what I was referring to, and assumed that was what the OP meant. He did say album, so I assumed he meant a physical CD and not individual tracks released for download.


Bugsy

Earlier JY interview posted here a few months ago.
JY's words "Is the world really waiting for a new Styx album?"
Does not sound like they are booking studio time anytime soon.

[stabbim]

Check out the main page on this site and read what Gene Simmons has to say about the record industry.

The record industry is in such a mess. I called for what it was when college kids first started download music for free -- that they were crooks. I told every record label I spoke with that they just lit the fuse to their own bomb that was going to explode from under them and put them on the street.

[snip]

It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning.

Y'know, for a guy as smart as I know Simmons to be, that's some truly stupid shit he's peddling. The music industry is in tatters because they lacked the intestinal fortitude to sue college kids at the dawn of Napster? C'mon, dude. You know better than that.

In fact, there's another quote further down the main page that counters Simmons' comments (and worldview) while succinctly highlighting an actual problem within the business:

Music kind of sucks. Nobody's into being a musician. Everybody's getting their mogul on. You've been so infiltrated by this corporate mentality that all the time you'd spend getting great songs together, you're busy doing nine other things that have nothing to do with art. You know how shitty Stevie Wonder's songs would have been if he had to run a fuckin' clothing company and a cologne line?

Damn straight.

[Rockwriter]

Check out the main page on this site and read what Gene Simmons has to say about the record industry.

The record industry is in such a mess. I called for what it was when college kids first started download music for free -- that they were crooks. I told every record label I spoke with that they just lit the fuse to their own bomb that was going to explode from under them and put them on the street.

[snip]

It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning.

Y'know, for a guy as smart as I know Simmons to be, that's some truly stupid shit he's peddling. The music industry is in tatters because they lacked the intestinal fortitude to sue college kids at the dawn of Napster? C'mon, dude. You know better than that.

In fact, there's another quote further down the main page that counters Simmons' comments (and worldview) while succinctly highlighting an actual problem within the business:

Music kind of sucks. Nobody's into being a musician. Everybody's getting their mogul on. You've been so infiltrated by this corporate mentality that all the time you'd spend getting great songs together, you're busy doing nine other things that have nothing to do with art. You know how shitty Stevie Wonder's songs would have been if he had to run a fuckin' clothing company and a cologne line?

Damn straight.

LOL, I can see that attitude, especially since I used to share it for a number of years. But I also understand that once people cross that line - the Great Divide between No Success and Having Success in the music business - it almost always changes and becomes about the money. We could argue all day about whether that's wrong or right, good or bad, but it simply IS. People divorce over money, they sue family over money, they live and die by money . . . it's just the way it is. Of course Gene is more into the biz than the music now . . . as are most guys who have had financial success from music. They start saying, how can we keep this going, what's next, I have a big house/divorce settlement/retirement/all kinds of other interests to pay for, how am I going to do so? I know that's not what creates the best music, but I understand it and can't fault it.

I hope all is well.


Sterling

[stabbim]

Of course Gene is more into the biz than the music now . . . as are most guys who have had financial success from music. They start saying, how can we keep this going, what's next, I have a big house/divorce settlement/retirement/all kinds of other interests to pay for, how am I going to do so? I know that's not what creates the best music, but I understand it and can't fault it.

Sure. For me it's not a question of whether someone like Simmons is more driven by the money -- of course he is, he always has been. "Getting your mogul on" is the KISS legacy, and yeah, it does make for some shitty music, but it's as valid a career choice as any. I just can't help roll my eyes at the suggestion that more punitive action from the record companies would have saved the industry from the slump it's in now.

[Barbara]

I just can't help roll my eyes at the suggestion that more punitive action from the record companies would have saved the industry from the slump it's in now.

Maybe all the "rock n rollers" need to get their shit together and stage a protest by letting their music be made available to the public ONLY by vinyl releases...wonder if that would have any impact? REALLY!!? I wonder what would happen?

[stmonkeys]

a few weeks ago, the link to Bob Lefsetz's email blog was posted (in the thread where "tommy shaw speaks"). I subscribed to the email list (you can get there through http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1). Anyway, Bob has a very interesting perspective on the current state of the music industry, with the "death" of the major labels, the rise of the independents, the demise of the retail record store, and paying for music vs P2P sharing. Really interesting stuff. Subscribe and check it out. There's a link to archives, and you can also see a bit of the Kid Rock flamewar. Basically, the CD is dead, people aren't buying music any more (not at retail stores, anyway), and the whole future of the industry is in flux. This is prob why styx has changed their plans on releasing new music. it seems that many bands are waiting to see what happens. Major labels are disappearing, contracts are being renegotiated (the eagles, madonna), new business models (a la radiohead) are being explored etc. I have a feeling, if Styx DOES release any new music, it will prob be a few songs as an iTunes EP. Seems to be where the industry is heading.

it's going to be an interesting year... LOL

[StyxCollector]

I think half the problem is the quality of music - and it's not me being crotchety. There is plenty of good new music out there, but I think I've seen a decline in the past 10 - 15 years. Like movies, remember when summer movies used to be an event? Now, with the proliferation of home theater, DVD, etc., going to see a movie in the theater isn't what it used to be. Sure, we have stadium seating and such, but the experience now is very different - at least it is to me. People treat the movies more like their own home theater - talking, cel phones, etc. You're not at home.

The music industry has undergone a transformation - and they've been fighting it since the cassette era. CD-Rs didn't kill the music industry and neither has MP3 really. Music has always (to some degree) been commodity, been bootlegged, etc. Where the transformation has come - and it's not just the ability to rip and put up on a P2P site - is that in my opinion, the value of music has gone down. With this generation of kids who grew up on computers and iPods, the lack of need for a physical medium really isn't the issue in my mind. It's the fact that because things are so readily available on the internet (and much more than music), there's a sense of entitlement that these things are just free and more commodity than ever. Screw copyrights and intellectual property. That's really what this is all about, folks. Artists make more on royalties, when a song they wrote is played on the radio, etc. than they do by selling a CD. There's a reason songwriters have a lot of upside (look at DDY ...) financially if you have a hit. If people aren't paying for anything, no one makes money, so why should someone invest thousands or millions into a project where they'll never make it back or have a hope of making it back?

Again, I remember when people would go to Tower at midnight on Monday for the Tuesday releases, and if it was a popular release, there would be lines. Where is that now (and it's not just that Tower's gone in the USA - they still exist in Japan)? Any hack with a computer, some software, and an instrument (or a plugin) can now make music. That's both good and bad. But someone who deems themselves an expert with ProTools at home isn't necessarily the same as going into a studio, professinal mastering, etc. In some cases it may be ... or it may even be better. But experience more often than not wins.

So I'd say that it's the overall quality of what we're getting - both video and audio - combined with other factors that has led us to where we are now. Then you have the loudness war which I also think greatly contributes, too. Whole other topic there

[stmonkeys]

interesting theory. I agree. In my opinion, the quality of music (particularly rock n roll) has gone down since the 70s. Let's face it. The best music was written between the early 60s and around 1979. The bands from that era were mainly the innovators. Since then, we have had the rise of the MTV era, which focused more on image and marketing, than quality of music. Sure, there have been some stand out acts since then (u2, metallica, green day etc) but for the most part there isn't the same quality of artists around today.

as for the value of music, if the record companies didn't try and price gauge us when they introduced cds, perhaps things would be different. I remember when they first came out, they were around $14.99-$17.99, and the rumor was that the prices would be coming down. But that never happened. Sure, you can find a cd on sale for around $9.99, but i think the public got tired of spending that much money on lousy songs. With vinyl, artists were limited to about 40 minutes of music, so they chose the best songs to appear on the album. A cd can hold up to 70 minutes of music. Sure, you could put more on the cd, but the question is, SHOULD you? especially when there might only be 3 good tunes on the cd, the rest pure filler. So now we have the capacity for more music, but the quality isn't always there.

Another consideration might be that our listening styles have changed over the years. Honestly, I haven't felt the urgency to run out and buy a cd in a long time! The last one might have been Stadium Arcadium by the Chili Peppers, and the Across the Universe soundtrack. Radio does a lousy job promoting new music (terrestrial radio, i don't have satellite). Most stations are corporately run, playing the same 70 songs over and over ad nauseum. I remember looking forward to albums being released, running down to record world (back in the 80s) and spending my allowance/babysitting money on new albums. (Now that i'm older, i'm spending my money on my children's needs, instead of my own.) Years ago, you would hear 3 or 4 tracks of a new release previewed on the radio, not necessarily just the "single." We would have friends over and listen to ALBUMS. Now, with our computers and ipods, it's the SONG that matters, not the collection as a whole. (iTunes seems to promote downloading an individual song over the entire cd) and since we're able to take our music with us everywhere and have ourselves "plugged in" with our headphones all the time, it becomes more of a solitary experience, than a shared one.

But, on the upside, all this new technology at our fingertips has made it much easier to bring our favorite music with us. I remember going on vacation to my grandparents' condo in florida, lugging my 10 lb boom box and a whole dufflebag stuffed with cassette tapes with me on the plane. NOW i could have easily loaded all my favorite albums and songs onto something smaller and lighter than a deck of cards. My kids will never know the burden of sitting on long car or plane rides, bored to tears, because they are busy watching a dvd etc. But then again, we used to read more, play outdoors more, ride our bikes more. times were/are different.


ok.. i have no idea what my point is anymore. my head hurts. carry on...

[StyxCollector]

interesting theory. I agree. In my opinion, the quality of music (particularly rock n roll) has gone down since the 70s. Let's face it. The best music was written between the early 60s and around 1979. The bands from that era were mainly the innovators. Since then, we have had the rise of the MTV era, which focused more on image and marketing, than quality of music. Sure, there have been some stand out acts since then (u2, metallica, green day etc) but for the most part there isn't the same quality of artists around today.

I think there's good music out there, but you won't see a Dylan, Springsteen, etc. again. Artists are not cultivated anymore - it has nothing to do with innovation. It has everything to do about the here and now vs. long term. Artists would basically get one or two albums now and then done on most majors ... if that.

as for the value of music, if the record companies didn't try and price gauge us when they introduced cds, perhaps things would be different. I remember when they first came out, they were around $14.99-$17.99, and the rumor was that the prices would be coming down. But that never happened. Sure, you can find a cd on sale for around $9.99, but i think the public got tired of spending that much money on lousy songs. With vinyl, artists were limited to about 40 minutes of music, so they chose the best songs to appear on the album. A cd can hold up to 70 minutes of music. Sure, you could put more on the cd, but the question is, SHOULD you? especially when there might only be 3 good tunes on the cd, the rest pure filler. So now we have the capacity for more music, but the quality isn't always there.

Well, if anyone remembers, the industry said that once the longboxes went away, CDs would be cheaper. Nah. And there was a reason b-sides were b-sides. I look at Journey's last few albums as an example - especially Trial By Fire. It would have made a much better 50 minute album than what was released. Instead you dilute things. Many, many examples of that.

Another consideration might be that our listening styles have changed over the years. Honestly, I haven't felt the urgency to run out and buy a cd in a long time! The last one might have been Stadium Arcadium by the Chili Peppers, and the Across the Universe soundtrack. Radio does a lousy job promoting new music (terrestrial radio, i don't have satellite). Most stations are corporately run, playing the same 70 songs over and over ad nauseum. I remember looking forward to albums being released, running down to record world (back in the 80s) and spending my allowance/babysitting money on new albums. (Now that i'm older, i'm spending my money on my children's needs, instead of my own.) Years ago, you would hear 3 or 4 tracks of a new release previewed on the radio, not necessarily just the "single." We would have friends over and listen to ALBUMS. Now, with our computers and ipods, it's the SONG that matters, not the collection as a whole. (iTunes seems to promote downloading an individual song over the entire cd) and since we're able to take our music with us everywhere and have ourselves "plugged in" with our headphones all the time, it becomes more of a solitary experience, than a shared one.

History repeats itself here. We're back to the 50s/60s where the single ruled - and that isn't a bad thing. My listening style hasn't changed, but there hasn't been much recently which has grabbed my ears. I always listen for good music new or old. It's no secret radio is a mess, so most of the traditional promotional venues for artists are gone. The other problem is that for the music I want to buy, I can't just go into a brick & mortar store to buy it if it's not a major label release or a greatest hits album. There are very few deep catalog places anymore (such as Silver Platters in Seattle). SO even if someone had a hankering to buy something, will you actually find it? I order most of it from the 'net.

[yogi]

I think most kids now think that 'their' music is great and the music that we all love sucks.

It is kind of like what we used to think when we were younger.

Face the facts, for the most part we are all old fucks, and we've all seen better days!!!\

P.S. You know what's funny? My wife and I took our kids to see Hannah Montana/Mylie Cyrus and The Jonas Brothers last Monday night.

The Jonas Brothers are todays cross between Loverboy & Night Ranger. Hannah was GREAT also.

Brings back the days of Donny & Marie, Partridge, New Kids, Hanson, Spice Girls etc.....

NOTHING changes. We are just growing old!!!

[gr8dane]

interesting theory. I agree. In my opinion, the quality of music (particularly rock n roll) has gone down since the 70s. Let's face it. The best music was written between the early 60s and around 1979. The bands from that era were mainly the innovators. Since then, we have had the rise of the MTV era, which focused more on image and marketing, than quality of music. Sure, there have been some stand out acts since then (u2, metallica, green day etc) but for the most part there isn't the same quality of artists around today.

as for the value of music, if the record companies didn't try and price gauge us when they introduced cds, perhaps things would be different. I remember when they first came out, they were around $14.99-$17.99, and the rumor was that the prices would be coming down. But that never happened. Sure, you can find a cd on sale for around $9.99, but i think the public got tired of spending that much money on lousy songs. With vinyl, artists were limited to about 40 minutes of music, so they chose the best songs to appear on the album. A cd can hold up to 70 minutes of music. Sure, you could put more on the cd, but the question is, SHOULD you? especially when there might only be 3 good tunes on the cd, the rest pure filler. So now we have the capacity for more music, but the quality isn't always there.

Another consideration might be that our listening styles have changed over the years. Honestly, I haven't felt the urgency to run out and buy a cd in a long time! The last one might have been Stadium Arcadium by the Chili Peppers, and the Across the Universe soundtrack. Radio does a lousy job promoting new music (terrestrial radio, i don't have satellite). Most stations are corporately run, playing the same 70 songs over and over ad nauseum. I remember looking forward to albums being released, running down to record world (back in the 80s) and spending my allowance/babysitting money on new albums. (Now that i'm older, i'm spending my money on my children's needs, instead of my own.) Years ago, you would hear 3 or 4 tracks of a new release previewed on the radio, not necessarily just the "single." We would have friends over and listen to ALBUMS. Now, with our computers and ipods, it's the SONG that matters, not the collection as a whole. (iTunes seems to promote downloading an individual song over the entire cd) and since we're able to take our music with us everywhere and have ourselves "plugged in" with our headphones all the time, it becomes more of a solitary experience, than a shared one.

But, on the upside, all this new technology at our fingertips has made it much easier to bring our favorite music with us. I remember going on vacation to my grandparents' condo in florida, lugging my 10 lb boom box and a whole dufflebag stuffed with cassette tapes with me on the plane. NOW i could have easily loaded all my favorite albums and songs onto something smaller and lighter than a deck of cards. My kids will never know the burden of sitting on long car or plane rides, bored to tears, because they are busy watching a dvd etc. But then again, we used to read more, play outdoors more, ride our bikes more. times were/are different.


ok.. i have no idea what my point is anymore. my head hurts. carry on...

Hope your head is better.
That was a mouthful and I hear you.
But.
When they put out 40 minute albums they did so once a year or so.(then).
Now it seems like bands put out new music once every 3 - 4 years.
So 70 minutes maybe less than they used to in comparison.
Now I am getting a headache.

[stmonkeys]

Hope your head is better.
That was a mouthful and I hear you.
But.
When they put out 40 minute albums they did so once a year or so.(then).
Now it seems like bands put out new music once every 3 - 4 years.
So 70 minutes maybe less than they used to in comparison.
Now I am getting a headache.

very good point! back in the 60s, many artists released albums every 6-8 moths (the beatles, the doors...etc) Then again, recording technology was different. Bands didn't spend months and months on end in the studio, perfecting every single solitary nuance. Lets face it, there are a lot of poorly recorded albums that were released back then. But it didn't matter, because the music was so great!!!