Sebastian Bach Wondering Why Only 0.5% of His Facebook Fans Bought His New Album, Accuses Rock Fans of Killing the Genre

"Why are you on my page? Are you there to look at the pictures?" the singer asks.

Ultimate Guitar

Sebastian Bach gave rock fans and everyone who liked his Facebook quite a bashing, accusing the guitar-driven community for destroying the genre.

Chatting with 14-year-old radio host Miles "the Shoe" Schuman, Bach couldn't held wondering why only a number equivalent to 0.5% of his 800,000 Facebook fans had purchased his new album "Give 'Em Hell."

"I can't complain, because 'Kicking & Screaming' came in at No. 72 on the Top 200, and 'Give 'Em Hell' came in at No. 71, so I'm not in a position to complain, but I have to say this, I have go to say the following statement," the vocalist kicked off (via Blabbermouth).

"I have over 800,000 people that like my Facebook page, that read every word I write on my Facebook page - over 800,000 - and yesterday, it said - 75,000 or 80,000 people are talking about it. I would like to thank the 5,000 out of the 800,000 that got my record, and I would like to ask the other 795,000 people, 'Why are you on my page? Are you there to look at the pictures? Is that why you're there? 'Cause that's simple. If that's what you want, I'll put some pictures up, or whatever.'

"But I have no clue, when it says 800,000 people and 70,000 people today are talking about this, what are you talking about? What? Like, what are you talking about? [Laughs] I don't get it. Like, what? What? What? 'Oh, he's got a new record out. I've loved him for years. I'm not gonna buy that.' [Laughs] I don't get it. I don't understand. I don't get it. I don't know why you're on my page. Like, for what? Why? What? [Laughs] I totally don't get it," Sebastian continued.

Accusing the fans of killing rock 'n' roll, the singer noted, "[The fact that rock albums don't sell a lot of copies nowadays is] way beyond me, bro. Country music fans go out and buy the CD. Rappers go out and buy the CD. Justin Bieber fans go out and get the CD. I've got 800,000 people on my page, and 795,000 of them don't get it. [Laughs] Thanks! Killer! Thank you! I appreciate that. Thank you, rock and rollers.

"It's up to the music fans. It's, like, you read rockers [complaining about how], 'Oh, rock is dying,' and everything. Yeah, you're killing it. Unless you're down at Best Buy buying your favorite band's new album, don't talk about rock being dead, because you're the one murdering it. Country music is alive and well, rap music is kicking a-s. So I don't know what to say," he concluded.

Trending stories

142 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    I'd like to say "because the album is shit", but it would be too obvious. There's got to be the other reason, surely.
    It's because 795,000 people genuinely thought he was the classical musician.
    To be honest, that's always the first person I think about when I see/read headlines about Sebastian Bach :/
    I've thought this for a while and I'm glad to finally see that I'm not the only one who thinks about the composer every time I read reports about the rock singer, whose birth surname is actually "Bierk".
    I think he needs to realize that not in the past thirty years has someone thought rock and roll and then immediately thought Sebastian Bach. Rock and Roll is dead as Bach knows it; that hair metal ultra-machismo crap is gone. And thankfully. That's why Great White played a show for 20 people last month. The 60's have The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, the 70's have Zeppelin and Sabbath, the 90's have Pearl Jam and Nirvana, the 2000's have the White Stripes and the Black Keys. These are all bands that have had longevity and whose music has outlasted the lifespan of the bands. The 80's don't have much of an equivalent for Rock. Maybe Chili Peppers or Soundgarden, but they didn't gain popularity til the 90's for the most part.
    van halen for 1980s if were counting sabbath as their lifespan of being over too
    Exactly Van Halen. lets not forget that whole thrash metal movement either, Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth etc, the 80s did have some pretty smoking music aside from the glam rock.
    The goal of all of these "real" metal bands are ultimately the same as any hair metal band. It's just painted different, and played faster.
    Metallica formed because they hated hair bands and wanted to do the complete opposite of them, and they pretty much did, they didn't even make a music video until their fourth album. Something tells me you don't know much about 80's bands.
    Hell lol, whenever an Overkill fan says hair metal sucks, which I like some of it (ones with talent lol), I just remind em of the first lineup of Overkill. They were as glam as Motley Crue ahahaha
    Yeah, sure, there's a lot of machismo in metal, but a part of the appeal is it empowers the listener. But there are types of metal that don't really have any of that, you just have to look. Metal is probably the most expansive genre out there, that you could probably find a metal band for everyone.
    I'm just talking about Rock. I'm not going into metal. Van Halen isn't even a blip on my radar to be honest, and some early Metallica is alright. Black Sabbath was declining on the last couple Ozzy albums, and Dio didn't help them recuperate at all. I think metal just about sucks as a genre, though, especially Slayer and Megadeath. It's just lame, pseudo-macho crap, to me.
    Velcro Man
    Just because they're not a blip on YOUR radar doesn't mean they're not one of the biggest names in rock music. Don't forget Stevie Ray Vaughan, Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, The Firm, Primus, Rush (they got the biggest in the 80s), Brian Johnson fronted AC/DC, Ozzy which always seemed less metal and more rock to me and Queen (who were getting their biggest in the 80s) Rock music in the 80s was more influenced by metal because it was the most popular music at the time, so if you just ignore harder music, you're ignoring the best the period had to offer. 60s = Psychedelic 70s = Hard Rock (Prog and Punk) 80s = Metal 90s = Alternative (Grunge and all that) 2000s+ has been kinda all over the place. YOU might not have liked it, but it was every bit as relevant as every other period of rock music.
    A freakinmen brother!! 80's created Metal and the Hard Rock I come to this site for. All these Zeppelin worshippers calling out the 80's makes me wanna gag (with a spoon even).
    I personally count Van Halen as a 70's band. We could arguably count Dio-era Sabbath, but I don't think that's the first thing anyone thinks of when they think of Black Sabbath.
    I love how gracefully you skipped the 80's :p What you're saying is true though
    It was a dark age for music in my honest opinion. Nothing that was good reached the mainstream ear. I have albums from every decade going back to the 40's, but I would be hard pressed to find anything from the 80's that I've purchased. I own Loud Love, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Violent Femmes' first album, and the Beastie Boys' second album.
    Are you people high? The 80's produced some of the best METAL and ROCK ever made!! From Ratt to Slayer to Satriani!!! In no other decade, was so much rock and roll created!! Dark Ages, for you maybe. God what a bunch of wanna be's.
    When I saw the comment that put Nirvana in rank with true icons (even though I don't care much for the Beatles ) I puked a lil. Grunge had a 3 to 4 yr party and it was DEAD! 80's hard rock & metal will live forever you troll'n lil bastards lol
    link no1
    Metallica from the 80's. Whether or not you like them, or whether or not you think they've become shitty, they're an iconic band of the 80's in the same way as the other bands you listed.
    They're not rock, though. I wasn't listing Metal music. I don't really like Nirvana, and I don't love the Beatles as much as some people. So I included bands other than my favorites. Metallica and Guns n Roses are similar in that they've lost all of their previously claimed respect, especially in the past ten years. They were once put on a pedestal like these other bands, but that's really gone away.
    Ratt's has some talented artists... Warren DeMartini and Robbin Crosby were a killer team. DeMartini could probably play circles around 80% or more of the guitarists back in 1984.
    Hell yeah they could, as could Reb Beach from Winger , bunch of trash talkin lil kids who don't know shit about talent. Grunge was lazy music... no solo's because they couldn't be bothered learning how to actually play the ****ing guitar.
    Blood Sugar came out in 91 dude (same day as Nevermind as well) I'd say the 80's was what formed the 90's with bands starting to differentiate from what was deemed normal in the 70's and prior To say the 80's was terrible, is very wrong with the birth of metal, the rebirth of punk (the punk revival in the mid 90's was started by bands who formed in the 80's). I'd see it more like the experimental decade, that pretty much solidified the ability for any rock band to make what ever music they wanted and however they wanted to.
    This. I watched some Top 10 list about the 80s, and genres was one of em. The 80s was the time where you didn't have to be, Rock, pop, or country. There were metal sub genres emerging, different kinds of rock, new wave. Its the decade that shaped what music is today pretty much. It started the be who you wanna be thing.
    You're right. I must have it confused with Mother's Milk. Like I said, there were bands that were underground in the 80's that were good, but they didn't get big until the 90's. I have also said I'm strictly talking about Rock and not Metal.
    The only stuff I can think of for the 80's off the top of my head is bands like The Cure, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, My Bloody Valentine, R.E.M, The Smiths, Dinosaur Jr and Mudhoney, but like the aforementioned RHCP and Soundgarden, a lot of those bands didn't gain popularity until at least the 90's. As far as underground music goes it was amazing, and a lot of that stuff has stood the test of time as far as I am concerned. Bands like Motley Crue and Poison? Not so much.
    You need to listen outside the box sonny. The bands you mention are certainly worth their due but there is a whole world of rock music that went on out there in all of those decades you mention and you have barely scratched the surface. As for your quote about Van Halen not even being on your radar just plain ridiculous when speaking of the rock genre....Van Halen are rock legends in their own time.....
    The point wasn't to encompass every good band from the creation of rock music, it was to list what most would consider the one or two most important bands in each decade. Honestly, outside of the progressive or 80's glorifying world, Van Halen isn't that relevant.
    Velcro Man
    Relevant is a subjective term, but if you are referring to their popularity, you're out of your mind. Also, pretty much every decade has faaaar more than 1 or 2 "important" groups, don't be narrow-minded.
    I mean relevant as in clear influence has been taken from them. Obviously each decade has more than 1 or 2 important groups, but I'm also obviously not going to make a comprehensive list in a U-G post.
    This is just silly. Many great "rock" albums came out in the 80s. Aerosmith cleaned up and released some great music during the 80s, Van Halen was doing well. Guns N Roses released the most amazing debut record I've ever heard, ZZ Top released Afterburner, ACDC also released the biggest rock n roll album of all time at the beginning of the 80s, and went on to release a few other amazing records in the 80s. Def Leppard (who aren't hair metal) released TWO defining rock albums of the decade, Pyromania AND Hysteria.... Dire Straits even released "brothers in arms" in the 80s. Infact, the more you examine it, the more you're wrong. LOTS of great ROCK albums and artists flourished in the 80s just fine, many of them recording and releasing some of their most iconic work.
    I think he was talking more about bands that came fresh out of the 80's, were insanely popular and had longevity to them, following that specific criteria, Guns 'n' Roses is the only band that fits the bill out of all the ones you've mentioned. Most of the bands you've mentioned started in the 70's and were getting a few albums under their belts by the time the decade was up. You're definitely right for albums in the 80's though.
    Why his album doesn't sell I don't know (bad album, downloading etc.) Why so many people like his page however, is to project a social identity on facebook. I use facebook and it has good uses like event updates and perhaps even the odd nice posts, but the main reason people post anything on facebook is wait to see the likes.., feel socially accepted.., then like every other post that you deem to be by a popular person or someone you want recognition from.
    The thing is, there's always records coming out and you can't buy all of them. I like bands/musicians facebook pages to get news about concerts or upcoming albums. It's not like you can't like a band if you're not gonna buy the new album the second it's released.
    This. I don't even think all of his fans that like his page on Facebook are even seeing his posts all of the time either. Not everyone is that active to check.
    Because getting a new album generally costs money, but clicking "Like" on Facebook is free.
    I've downloaded a heap of albums (illegally) and gone and brought all the good ones on CD. This is not a good one sorry Seb