The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: lowend1 on June 12, 2017, 05:06:25 PM
-
Get yer wallets out! :mrgreen:
Vintage, but not one of the actual basses he played in the 70s.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gene-Simmons-KISS-Stage-Played-and-Signed-Vintage-Gibson-Grabber-/232348318170?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368
-
At $13,745 they couldn't throw in free shipping. ???
Deduct $13K for a through cleaning to get rid of any trace of Gene's DNA.
-
At $13,745 they couldn't throw in free shipping. ???
Deduct $13K for a through cleaning to get rid of any trace of Gene's DNA.
I asked a seller of a nice (but overpriced) grabber if the gene simmons signature would wash off. No responding ???
-
I asked a seller of a nice (but overpriced) grabber if the gene simmons signature would wash off. No responding ???
;D
Seriously, there are very few cases where I would pay more for a signature that wouldn't wash off.
-
All of the Grabbers he used back in the day had one piece maple necks.
-
Man, Kiss sucks. At least the frets won't be worn any above the fifth.
-
As always, he's only in it for the money (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gene-simmons-seeks-register-trademark-iconic-rock-hand-gesture-1013378). >:(
-
What a dork
-
I think he's just gleefully annoying people on purpose at this point. 1974? I don't think so...
-
If I were to add another Grabber to the collection I would pop for a early burgundy one like played. No way would I spend 13k on a Grabber just because he played it a bit and signed it.
-
All of the Grabbers he used back in the day had one piece maple necks.
Mmmmm... they all have scarf joints, so are they really one piece??
Gene's wine red grabber was one of those (I think) earlier ones with the weird "negative pitch" headstock. The black one (which, IIRC, was passed on to Mark "The Animal" Mendoza) had a conventionally pitched 'stock.
-
As always, he's only in it for the money (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gene-simmons-seeks-register-trademark-iconic-rock-hand-gesture-1013378). >:(
Man, Kiss sucks. ;D
Honestly I think they were a perfectly adequate if hardly envelope-pushing hard rock band. I think Ace Frehley is one of the laziest guitarists of the era. Yet they've diluted their core worth unbelievably with their moneygrubbing antics and endless cheapening. I know a lot of bands back then relied on a big show to sell units and grab attention, but Kiss went further and basically became some weird commercial entity that just happened to make no-brainer rock tunes.
-
Man, Kiss sucks. ;D
Honestly I think they were a perfectly adequate if hardly envelope-pushing hard rock band. I think Ace Frehley is one of the laziest guitarists of the era. Yet they've diluted their core worth unbelievably with their moneygrubbing antics and endless cheapening. I know a lot of bands back then relied on a big show to sell units and grab attention, but Kiss went further and basically became some weird commercial entity that just happened to make no-brainer rock tunes.
40+ years on, the sting of sour grapes on the tongue is too much for some to bear, eh?
-
40+ years on, the sting of sour grapes on the tongue is too much for some to bear, eh?
I hardly think that being a critic of their music is sour grapes. I certainly don't begrudge their success or care that they have fans.
Simmons is being blasted on FB for his intent to trademark a gesture that others used earlier. That's missing the point. Wouldn't matter if he were the first to use it. The problem is an attempted abuse of trademark law to suppress expression by others. IMHO just another reason why trademark should be strictly limited to brand names and logos.
-
Mmmmm... they all have scarf joints, so are they really one piece??
Gene's wine red grabber was one of those (I think) earlier ones with the weird "negative pitch" headstock. The black one (which, IIRC, was passed on to Mark "The Animal" Mendoza) had a conventionally pitched 'stock.
No scarf joints on the one piece examples. Just the skunk stripe.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/312wkqq.jpg)
-
I hardly think that being a critic of their music is sour grapes. I certainly don't begrudge their success or care that they have fans.
Simmons is being blasted on FB for his intent to trademark a gesture that others used earlier. That's missing the point. Wouldn't matter if he were the first to use it. The problem is an attempted abuse of trademark law to suppress expression by others. IMHO just another reason why trademark should be strictly limited to brand names and logos.
That wasn't directed at you, Dave, - or even the criticism of Gene's business acumen, which is certainly a crucial element in their level of success and has been a favorite target of their critics. Since the 1970s, there have been plenty of times when I have taken issue with things they have said, done or recorded. If you were a fan back then, odds are you had to endure the slings and arrows of friends who were fans of "serious" rock bands (as if there were such things) lambasting Kiss' abilities as musicians. Those grapes are not only sour, but are so old that they could be classified as raisins. There have been plenty of bands with fair-to-middling skills that have become successful, but Kiss were an easy target because they were very visual and took advantage of their own marketing potential. Peter Frampton had similar issues and he was a far more accomplished player - actually, Humble Pie was an influence on Kiss in the early days. Kiss' music can be critiqued, their work ethic can not.
With regard to the devil horns thing - I'm not even sure that story had broken when I posted, but since you raised it...
While it may seem ridiculous to us to try and trademark a hand gesture that has been around for centuries, is use has become a mainstay of the heavy metal community, and as such has been used as an element in the creation of commercial product - including logos - that appear on t-shirts and albums. If you're making money from it, it isn't simply expression. In that context, it is literally an untapped revenue stream. I would venture a guess that it this type of use that would be targeted - not somebody holding up their hand. Gene first used it in concert and on album covers around 1976-77. Ronnie James Dio began using it in concert around the same time and stated in interviews that he would be surprised if he was the first to use it. There were sporadic, almost incidental uses prior to that, but nobody laid claim to it as far as I know. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one at the Outpost), but that kind of makes it fair game, no?
-
Just the skunk stripe.
So, still not one piece. ;)
Kiss' music can be critiqued, their work ethic can not.
That's for damn sure! They worked their asses off for the first 5 years and had balls of steel to do what they did in the mid-70s.
-
You are correct, and I can't believe I forgot about the skunk stripe, because it is plainly visible in the Alive! booklet.
However, this is the "Mendoza" bass, which eventually made its way back to Gene for authentication and a sig.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/lowend1/Gene_Mendoza3_zpsnmus5rrc.jpg) (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/lowend1/media/Gene_Mendoza3_zpsnmus5rrc.jpg.html)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/lowend1/Gene_Mendoza1_zpsyw4ulkge.jpg) (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/lowend1/media/Gene_Mendoza1_zpsyw4ulkge.jpg.html)
-
Maybe Gene can get a copyright on black fur helmets too?
-
Maybe Gene can get a copyright on black fur helmets too?
If there's money in it...🤔
It IS one of a kind.
-
Maybe Gene can get a copyright on black fur helmets too?
No kidding!!!
-
That wasn't directed at you, Dave, - or even the criticism of Gene's business acumen, which is certainly a crucial element in their level of success and has been a favorite target of their critics. Since the 1970s, there have been plenty of times when I have taken issue with things they have said, done or recorded. If you were a fan back then, odds are you had to endure the slings and arrows of friends who were fans of "serious" rock bands (as if there were such things) lambasting Kiss' abilities as musicians. Those grapes are not only sour, but are so old that they could be classified as raisins. There have been plenty of bands with fair-to-middling skills that have become successful, but Kiss were an easy target because they were very visual and took advantage of their own marketing potential. Peter Frampton had similar issues and he was a far more accomplished player - actually, Humble Pie was an influence on Kiss in the early days. Kiss' music can be critiqued, their work ethic can not.
With regard to the devil horns thing - I'm not even sure that story had broken when I posted, but since you raised it...
While it may seem ridiculous to us to try and trademark a hand gesture that has been around for centuries, is use has become a mainstay of the heavy metal community, and as such has been used as an element in the creation of commercial product - including logos - that appear on t-shirts and albums. If you're making money from it, it isn't simply expression. In that context, it is literally an untapped revenue stream. I would venture a guess that it this type of use that would be targeted - not somebody holding up their hand. Gene first used it in concert and on album covers around 1976-77. Ronnie James Dio began using it in concert around the same time and stated in interviews that he would be surprised if he was the first to use it. There were sporadic, almost incidental uses prior to that, but nobody laid claim to it as far as I know. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one at the Outpost), but that kind of makes it fair game, no?
I know it wasn't directed at me.
From what I've read on FB, Dio used it before Simmons and a couple of others used it well before Dio. Makes no difference to me if Simmons was the first and only one to ever use it. A trademark on a hand gesture would be a government-granted monopoly on speech. It should never be allowed under any circumstance. Revenue stream? Commercial product? Not at the expense of someone's right of expression. Ever.
I was already in my late 20s when Kiss came along. Never liked bands that were in it for show, their music was inoffensive, not worth the effort for me to like or dislike. But in the past dozen or so years, I've come to despise Gene Simmons and everything he stands for.
-
John Lennon, 1966
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/davepix/humor/c_111_front_zpsdi76rtte.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKPV9OMXUEM
-
From what I've read on FB, Dio used it before Simmons and a couple of others used it well before Dio.
This is the thing. Gene and RJD always did two different gestures (and John's was another thing as well). The fact that most discussions are conflating them all doesn't help.
I'm not sure I even buy that Gene is serious in his trademark application, but I do see that, once again, the band and Gene particularly are a topic of conversation across pop culture and among people who were never even fans. That's been Gene's real shtick since at least the late 70s.
And what about Texas?
http://mentalfloss.com/article/24475/give-me-sign-stories-behind-5-hand-gestures
-
John Lennon, 1966
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/davepix/humor/c_111_front_zpsdi76rtte.jpg)
I'd wager John's intent was the I love you sign since his thumb is out and that's more of what he's associated with. Shocking to see Paul promoting white power! :o
-
My Italian half is well acquainted with malocchio - the Evil Eye - which is incurred or protected against as described by Ronnie. Note that with malocchio, the thumb is not extended as per Gene's trademark drawing, so metalheads everywhere should be able to sleep at night. Where Gene may have a problem is with the fact that his gesture is already ASL (sign language) for "I love you". John Lennon, as usual, has it all ass-backwards with his palm facing inward, which loosely translates in sign language to "George, will you stop playing that damn sitar".
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GUY5p9k8TAc
-
Someone on facebook posted this, apparently from 1969.
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/19222928_1757278894562482_6885289484747716902_o.jpg?oh=238b1df97cd77838c753b62c989bc397&oe=59E0CEB6)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJfhOgv6Uyc
Sounds dangerous...
-
Someone on facebook posted this, apparently from 1969.
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/19222928_1757278894562482_6885289484747716902_o.jpg?oh=238b1df97cd77838c753b62c989bc397&oe=59E0CEB6)
I still have this record.
-
40+ years on, the sting of sour grapes on the tongue is too much for some to bear, eh?
Not really! What next? "I'd like to see you write something as good as Strutter!!!"
I was born in 1989 so Kiss is just old-people music for me and there is nothing for me to be bitter about. The woman that cut our hair as kids liked them! However there is literally hundreds of better old-people bands out there, that didn't have to cover over their musical deficiencies and mind-numbing lyrics by dressing up a concert as a WWE wrestling tournament. Kiss really were only in it for the money, and went way beyond other bands in a bid to extract that money from their fans. There is nothing cerebral about their music at all; it was for kids and teenage boys, and the fact that they can tour with two different guys in costume just demonstrates that they are more of a franchise than a legitimate artistic entity.
After all this time I wish there was something inspiring about Gene's bass playing, for example, but he is way more concerned about getting his stupid botox face and nylon wig into the press or simply making money, than he has ever been about playing bass. That video with Carol Kaye schooling him is some funny shit! The guy still has no inherent sense of rhythm or musicality after being a "pro" musician for decades. How does that work?
-
Not really! What next? "I'd like to see you write something as good as Strutter!!!"
Nah. Not my style. "as good as" is too subjective. I look at results. I might be more inclined to say "How many of your records have gone gold/platinum again?"
I'm tempted to leave it at that, but...
I get it. You don't like Kiss, and that certainly is your prerogative. I do find it interesting, however, that for someone who was born long after Kiss' initial heyday, you have spent an impressive amount of time analyzing not only their musical abilities, but their lyrical content, stage presentation, motivation, and their place in rock-n-roll history - and yet you can't seem to grasp what it is that made them so successful. I'm assuming, of course, that you have done all that legwork - otherwise you would be engaging in anal elocution.
Carol Kaye made a name and career for herself by reliably playing what the song required and then getting paid for it - which is pretty much ANY recording musician's job at the professional level, including Gene. At the risk of putting words in her mouth, I would imagine that she would opine that whatever Gene has played seems to have worked out pretty well for him. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that everything is measured by the same set of standards.
Yes, nothing cerebral - like all good rock n roll.
-
I can easily see Dave's point of view. KISS never floated his boat. They're not for him and never were; no big deal. But to see such vehemence from non KISS fans who weren't even around during the heyday of the band always makes me laugh. I was ten years old when Alive was released (so a perfect age for what they were selling) and I ended up being a HUGE fan, but I also had to witness lame marketing moves and insane musical decisions while getting crap from other kids who'd moved on to other bands and genres as the 70s continued on. Gene's inner dick was showing long before the first make-up era was over (and I never felt the need to support or defend it) but the fact that he can get such a huge reaction from people all over the net 44 years into his career says something about his industry acumen. I'll always have a soft spot for the original band but that's mostly where it ended. That being said, some non-KISS fans seem to have a bigger hook in their mouth than even old KISS nerds ever did. Who'd have ever thought that would happen!
And no, it's not "I'd like to see you write something as good as Strutter!!!" It's, let's see you do anything at all that has one tenth of the impact, success, and longevity that that band has had. They're pushing 70. Paul's voice is shot and his costume is literally half girdle. Gene's helmet isn't even close to his most embarrassing attribute, and half the band are hired hands in other guys' make-up who had nothing to do with their early success, and they still pull enough money in on tour to float the kind of show they do. Internationally. How many people does that employ? That's impressive no matter how good or bad they are as musicians. So until anyone complaining can put up anything even close to that, it will look like sour grapes whether they mean it that way or not.
-
Popularity has nothing to do with how good a musician is. If it were, then Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber would be the western world's best current musicians.
When you knock somebody younger for not liking a band you adore, time to look in the mirror and realize you've become your parents! :o
Not really! What next? "I'd like to see you write something as good as Strutter!!!"
(insert sound of Dave spewing coffee) :mrgreen:
-
After hearing people talk of them in this forum, I actually bought "Greatest Hits".
I didn't get it. listened maybe 3X. Still didn't get it.
-
Anybody's "Greatest Hits" collection is generally a lousy place to start. With Kiss, the early studio albums, while being decent rock & roll, tended to be a little weak in the knees. The first three albums each have their own distinct sound, while Alive! is more cohesive in terms of performance and production, and is a better studio record to boot.
-
My sister bought me Alive for Christmas 1976. I was hooked. Started playing bass in late 1977 with a Gibson G-3 no less. We lived in Panama until mid 1979 so i didn't get a chance to see them live until the Lick It Up tour in 1984. Palmer Auditorium in Austin TX. Riot and Vandenberg opened. The band put on a show and Gene rocked the Pedulla bass. Paul was jumping and running like a madman with his Leopard print BC Rich Eagle, Vinnie Vincent had probably 7 Jackson Randy Rhoads guitars on stage and the late great Eric Carr on drums. I saw them again during the 2000 "farewell" tour and while it was great seeing Ace and Peter with the band it seemed like they were going through the motions. I even left before the encore to beat the traffic.
I would have enjoyed seeing them circa 1974-76. But that '84 show was incredible. Especially at a 3000 capacity area.
-
When you knock somebody younger for not liking a band you adore, time to look in the mirror and realize you've become your parents! :o
I'm surprised you missed this, Dave, but it wasn't OldManC or myself who brought up the age differential. Once it's been broached, though, it's fair game. In this case, it's like shooting fish in a barrel - except that the fish started shooting themselves. When one responds with opinion (sans qualifiers) as if it were fact, credibility goes out the window.
It is very difficult to objectively assess impact unless you are in and of that same moment and are aware. My parents never got Chuck Berry, Elvis or The Beatles, and neither do my kids. All were before my time, but I was close enough to feel the ripples.
I've seen Kiss a bunch of times from '76-'92 including a no-frills benefit show at the Stone Pony. At their core, (and in their prime) they are a great rock band.
-
(http://i68.tinypic.com/ehfc4l.jpg)
-
I'm surprised you missed this, Dave, but it wasn't OldManC or myself who brought up the age differential. Once it's been broached, though, it's fair game. In this case, it's like shooting fish in a barrel - except that the fish started shooting themselves. When one responds with opinion (sans qualifiers) as if it were fact, credibility goes out the window.
It is very difficult to objectively assess impact unless you are in and of that same moment and are aware. My parents never got Chuck Berry, Elvis or The Beatles, and neither do my kids. All were before my time, but I was close enough to feel the ripples.
I've seen Kiss a bunch of times from '76-'92 including a no-frills benefit show at the Stone Pony. At their core, (and in their prime) they are a great rock band.
Oh, come on. When someone says Kiss sucks, you know it's an opinion. It doesn't need a disclaimer any more than your saying Kiss is a great rock band.
You like what you like. No need to be defensive if others don't agree.
-
I like Kiss. Never got a chance to see them live but I appreciate their place in history as a general fan of rock. Saying they only appeal to kids and teenage boys is sort of a moot point because that statement could apply to most rock bands, even deep purple.
It seems fairly common knowledge that Ace Frehley isn't necessarily the guy you hear on all the recordings. I have to wonder if the same doesn't go for Gene. For example, do you all really think he came up with the lick at 1:40 here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SDfGBdql80
It doesn't tarnish their legacy if they did use session guys, just an interesting observation.
-
I like Kiss. Never got a chance to see them live but I appreciate their place in history as a general fan of rock. Saying they only appeal to kids and teenage boys is sort of a moot point because that statement could apply to most rock bands, even deep purple.
It seems fairly common knowledge that Ace Frehley isn't necessarily the guy you hear on all the recordings. I have to wonder if the same doesn't go for Gene. For example, do you all really think he came up with the lick at 1:40 here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SDfGBdql80
It doesn't tarnish their legacy if they did use session guys, just an interesting observation.
Gene has always been upfront in that he didn't play bass on every cut on every album. Ace and Paul both played bass on a fair amount of their own compositions, and likewise, Gene played guitar on a lot of the stuff he wrote or co-wrote. On his '78 solo album, he left some of the bass work to Neil Jason
The lick you are referring to sounds like Gene - but I can't swear that it is. Jimmy Haslip and Mike Porcaro supposedly played bass on one song each, but not that one. "Creatures" has a bunch of session players on it, because Ace did not contribute a single note on guitar. I highly recommend the book "Kiss - Behind The Mask" because it delves into the recording of each album and addresses a lot of the "who did what" aspect of many of the songs.
-
I like Kiss. Never got a chance to see them live but I appreciate their place in history as a general fan of rock. Saying they only appeal to kids and teenage boys is sort of a moot point because that statement could apply to most rock bands, even deep purple.
....
I can't agree. College age and beyond (18-25) were the prime audiences for most rock groups of the late 60s and the 70s. Not so with Kiss. Everyone I knew who liked them back then were kids and younger teenagers. Every Kiss fan I know locally now was in that age group back then, and none of their wives or girlfriends are fans. Most of the other bands who are still around have broader appeal than just their original age group following.
NTTAWWT. You like what you like, and there's no accounting for taste.
-
Well sure plenty of people in their twenties liked rock bands in the sixties. The overarching appeal of rock and roll from it's inception was supposed to be a music of youth and rebellion that freaked out your parents and was at the same time sympathetic to the roller coaster of angst and hyper emotionalism that adolescents experience. Even the most revered rock groups are essentially just performing pop music when compared to legitimate composers. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy it as an adult, however rock bands shouldn't be given the same intellectual gravity of something like a Handel grand organ concerto or a Beethoven symphony.
-
I can't agree. College age and beyond (18-25) were the prime audiences for most rock groups of the late 60s and the 70s. Not so with Kiss. Everyone I knew who liked them back then were kids and younger teenagers. Every Kiss fan I know locally now was in that age group back then, and none of their wives or girlfriends are fans. Most of the other bands who are still around have broader appeal than just their original age group following.
NTTAWWT. You like what you like, and there's no accounting for taste.
Too easy. This is fairly representative of a Kiss audience in the mid 70s.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/lowend1/IMG_0189_zpsoedarlom.jpg) (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/lowend1/media/IMG_0189_zpsoedarlom.jpg.html)
-
Oh for pity's sake. It's a posed photo.
Why are you so invested in this? You don't need to prove anything. You're a fan. I get it. No one's trying to talk you out of it.
-
Let's get back to Grabber basses!
(http://i64.tinypic.com/20gbpye.jpg)
-
while Alive! is more cohesive in terms of performance and production, and is a better studio record to boot.
:mrgreen:
-
Oh for pity's sake. It's a posed photo.
Remind me not to post pics of the moon landing...😳
Dave, it's Cobo Hall - taken at one of the shows on that tour. It was shot by Fin Costello, one of the premier rock photogs of the era. He has been interviewed about its authenticity and confirmed the details. The two guys with the banner were at the show and were simply asked to stand with the audience behind them. That is the actual audience.
There is plenty about Alive! that was doctored, so if it was posed, there would be little reason to act like it was the real deal.
-
And?
Yes, they got big crowds. Probably still do. Having young women pose with a sign doesn't change their demographic.
Meanwhile, there's hope: Texas president to Gene Simmons: You can’t trademark that hand gesture (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/06/19/texas-president-to-gene-simmons-you-cant-trademark-that-hand-gesture/). University of Texas has plenty enough money to fight Gene's attempt to register a trademark.
-
And?
And...
That's not a crowd full of kids and young teens. I would guess that the average age of the visible people in the audience would be around 20. That was your point re their fan base - that they were primarily kids, no? The shift in demographics came later, like in '78-'79, with all the merchandising.
Those are guys holding the sign, btw.
I could care less if Gene gets to copyright the gesture. I don't even think Gene cares. His primary concern is probably that his name is being mentioned.
-
Your x-ray vision can tell the age of the crowd. Impressive! No doubt all the kids in that audience drove themselves to the arena.
In other news, Gene will be suing Summer's Eve because he's now a bigger douche than all the products they've ever sold.
Aaaaand I'm done here.
-
I drove myself to Palmer Auditorium to see them in 1984. I was 22 at the time.
-
In other news, Gene will be suing Summer's Eve because he's now a bigger douche than all the products they've ever sold.
That nearly got the V8 I was drinking to come out my nose!!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
-
This discussion here reminds me of one in the NME in 1976 whether Kiss were a credible rock band or not. One argument against them was that they were "a hype". To which one fan who liked their London concert quipped: "Of course they are a hype, how else are you gonna promote a band with 7" platform shoes, full theatrical make-up and, uhum, leather bat wings?" :rimshot: That sums it up.
That said, I still can't get over the fact that Dave thought the two fresh-faced kids on the back of Alive were girls ... a little long hair and angelic looks disorient you that much, Dave, tsk, tsk, tsk ... ? :-*
Kiss were conceptually geared toward a teenage audience - as were The Beatles btw in their first few years -, but would take money from anyone else who would pay to see them. I was 15 in 1976 when I first heard of them - weaned on Alice Cooper, their look intrigued me from the start. I bought Alive and Dressed to Kill and I immediately realized "These guys are good fun and their look is spectacular, but they won't be a new Deep Purple, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.", their music was heavy-handed (even for a hard rock act) and lacked finesse (even for a hard rock act). Back then no one above my age took Kiss remotely serious (they could have played the most sophisticated prog rock - with that look, no chance ...) - people at my school my age liked Jethro Tull, CSN&Y, Mike Oldfield, ELP, Pink Floyd, Genesis (Peter Gabriel era), Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever or Frank Zappa, I was an outcast for liking Sweet, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple and Status Quo - which were all perceived as blue collar teeny bopper bands. When I one day turned up dressed as Paul Stanley during carnival I was almost stoned (and I don't mean drugged!) by my classmates. :mrgreen:
However, I would imagine that Kiss in their home market (they only toured Germany first in 1976, shortly after the release of Destroyer)
(http://www.kissfanshop.de/KissinDeutschland/1976HeisseralsdiePolizeierlaubtTeil2.jpg)
had initially in their formative years an older audience by sheer necessity - as they played every shithole in the US as a (pretty soon feared) opening act for bands such as Foghat or BÖC who all had a more mature audience. People tend to forget that Kiss won over people live first - and only then people began listening to their albums. But I would imagine that any college kid buying Alive (and finding it musically less satisfactory than, say, live albums from Grand Funk Railroad or Deep Purple) would very soon have his little bro or sis drool over the cover. Kiss as a concept fascinated children and teenagers.
-
At a Halloween 1978 party that my band played I went as Paul even though I was the bass player. Well, he did play bass on Love Gun among others. :)
(http://i67.tinypic.com/28cpr3s.jpg)
-
A guy that was eventually my closest brother in law was the one that brought over Alive for me to hear for the first time. He was your age, Uwe, and was steeped in American hard rock of the time (and Zep, Scorpions, Priest, which all fit the bill as well). The teeny-bopper epithet got thrown at them pretty early but I didn't see them embracing it all that much until Gene and Bill (probably) recognized it as an untapped revenue stream around '79, with the Dynasty marketing campaign.
I have no problem that KISS aren't everyone's cup of tea. That was never a factor in my liking them. The thing that I was pointing out earlier in the thread is that (I believe) they deserve credit either way in that almost nobody who is a rock music fan in any way is in the middle with them, and even their detractors often spend a weird amount of time and effort talking about them and feeling the need to argue with anyone who challenges their view (which, admittedly, diehard KISS fans do as well). I haven't seen that nearly as much with Aerosmith fans, or Styx fans, or whoever. Love them or hate them, for whatever reason (and even now after all these years) the one thing they usually aren't is ignored.
-
I do find it interesting, however, that for someone who was born long after Kiss' initial heyday, you have spent an impressive amount of time analyzing not only their musical abilities, but their lyrical content, stage presentation, motivation, and their place in rock-n-roll history - and yet you can't seem to grasp what it is that made them so successful.
It took me about five minutes, or three Kiss tunes, to grasp their musical abilities, lyrical content, stage presentation and motivation. A further five minutes cemented the deal.
Nothing for me not to grasp here. They were successful in the same way that Wrestling is successful, or monster trucks flattening a line of cars. Attention-grabbing macho posturing in a controlled environment, with enough theatrics for kids with limited attention span. Kiss had the stomping rock assault of Slade, but with the added bonus of a gory and extreme stageshow. The same shit that got us all chatting about Slipknot and co when I was a young adolescent. Somebody's older brother (it always was) went to a Slipknot show, and they threw live animals into the crowd and refused to play a note until the crowd had torn these animals to shreds! The same myth was spread around about Kiss, apparently. Shock, revulsion, the idea that you are witnessing something a bit taboo, exciting and off-grid, and you parents almost certainly don't like it. Kiss are satanists! Kiss perform rituals onstage! Kiss kill animals onstage!!! All that nonsense.
My issue with Kiss is their extreme level of money-mindedness. Their music was only a vector, or one of a competing range of elements of their existence, in a bid to make lots of money. They must be up there with the Beatles in terms of having a sea of tacky merchandise made in their image? Only the Beatles were innovative artists, and Kiss made brainless pounding tunes where the chorus is simply the name of the track yelled four or eight times... big difference.
I'm not saying Rock 'n' Roll has to be cerebral. My favorite AC/DC album is Dirty Deeds fer fack's sake. Of that era I like Deep Purple, UFO, Uriah Heep (!), Montrose, Status Quo... there is a whole raft of brainless double-denim Dad Rock I can listen to and enjoy. Kiss don't sound that good to simply sit down and listen to, because so much of their dubious craft was spent on the visuals (and making sure they always translated into money). The singers don't have iconic voices, the lead guitarist simply plunders the Chuck Berry phrase book, the bass is a groove-less farting plod and the drummer is also totally non noteworthy. I can't simply go to my local enormodome the next time they're in town and watch Gene spit blood capsules down his bass, so I have to rely on recordings and videos to make any sort of judgement. I'm sure they were significant in the '70s but their sound, stagecraft and image have aged worse than most of their contemporaries in my opinion.
-
Their music was only a vector, or one of a competing range of elements of their existence, in a bid to make lots of money.
Besides the fact that being at least somewhat monetarily successful at what you do is the whole friggin' point of trying to make a living (unless you're a trust fund baby it kind of has to be), that's completely untrue; which is probably why you're getting the pushback.
Gene's background and total comfort in coming across in all the hideously un-PC ways his background is described is the only thing that can be linked to your statement. Every single one of these guys had the EXACT same trajectory as most of us in high school and afterward. They all got a guitar or drums, had garage bands, and then moved on to gigging bands and were eventually in bands that got record company attention. They were gigging musicians for years before KISS was even formed. Gene had other "real" jobs too because that's how he was raised, but the other three were typical of any other wanna-be rock star of the time with dead end jobs that really only supported their music habits, which took 100% of their passion.
Wicked Lester were signed (and both Gene and Paul not only did session work but had writing credits as well). Chelsea (sp?) (Peter's pre-KISS band) were signed. Both recorded full albums paid for by a record company. Whether they sucked or not only makes them like the thousands of other bands that got signed and never went anywhere. At least one of Ace's earlier bands was signed and I've heard the singles they recorded in the late 60s or very early 70s.
When they formed KISS they were no different than the Dolls and others in the NYC glam music scene, except two of them were far more disciplined. As for image, they just wanted to stand out. With the help of early band management and supporters they developed something different, and yes, they wanted fame and fortune. Just like every single other "rock star" that ever existed. The make-up, the costumes, the stage moves, were all inspired by contemporary music and show business culture. Enough of those involved have written books now that anyone who cares to know can find out where it all came from other than the four guys.
Music wasn't the vector, it was the thing. Gene and Paul were Beatle fans just like Ozzy was, and Alice was, and Don Henley was, and Don McLean was. They saw the Ed Sullivan shows and heard the albums and wanted to do that too. Same story as 90% of every other band that came up in the late 60's until the late 70s or so. You can think they suck. You can dislike their shows and merch, but does that mean the Beatles (who you mentioned) were only in it for the money? Was their music just a vector?
Gene and Paul may only be a nostalgia band now (where your critique has some merit), but the band that sold a million copies of Alive in 1975 was anything but. They were hungry and working their asses off to live the dream. And it's that band that everyone here (defending them) is referring to.
-
In other news, Gene will be suing Summer's Eve because he's now a bigger douche than all the products they've ever sold.
Aaaaand I'm done here.
;D
-
Uwe's point about them "playing every shithole in the US" is well taken. I bought Alive! the day it came out, and was hooked before the end of "Deuce". It was too late for me to get tickets to see them a month or so later at the Capitol Theater in Passaic, NJ (a notoriously piss-stained venue with sticky floors and junkies shooting up in the bathroom - that showed porno during the day). I had to wait almost a year to see them at Roosevelt Stadium in Jersey City (a crumbling, practically abandoned minor-league ballpark that hosted concerts during the summer). Hardly a Bay City Rollers show, there was nefarious activity at every turn, made all the more unsettling by the fact that someone had been stabbed to death at a Yes concert there a few weeks prior.
-
I like Kiss without being a fan, I have evey single one of their albums, I think Gene S. is hilarious and witty behind that facade of sledgehammer-"I don't care if you dislike me because I'm wealthier than you".
But when it comes to musical merits, a band like Aerosmith is skyhigh above Kiss. I saw the Luftschmitze only yesterday in Cologne (and Kiss maybe a month ago in Frankfurt), I enjoyed myself at both gigs, but where Aerosmith are like a National Geographic edition of various types of American music delivered with swagger, Kiss are like a porn magazine. Not that there is anything wrong with the latter, but Kiss is one-dimensional and obviously limited in what they can credibly deliver. Take a song like Walk this Way (by no means my favourite 'Smith song), and Tyler's lyrics and rhythmic delivery alone are as far removed to what Paul Stanley could do as Michael Douglas' acting is from Steven Segal's.
-
Tyler's lyrics and rhythmic delivery alone are as far removed to what Paul Stanley could do as Michael Douglas' acting is from Steven Segal's.
I'm not sure I would equate Tyler with Michael Douglas. When channel surfing, I routinely pass his movies by while stifling a yawn, but if I even hear the phrase "Anybody seen Richie?", chances are I'll be glued to the TV like a mental patient. Its not that Seagal is a better actor, it's just that it is infinitely more entertaining to watch him find new ways to break someone's arm.
-
(http://i68.tinypic.com/24f0mj4.jpg)
-
That's a shot of them I've never seen, Nice!
But when it comes to musical merits, a band like Aerosmith is skyhigh above Kiss.
I agree that Aerosmith's early catalogue has held up amazingly well and that they were far more inspired (than KISS) as far as their music being an artistic endeavor, but...
Years ago they did a double headline tour and I saw their stop at Jones Beach. 2003 or so. I can't remember for sure, but I think Peter was still around and Ace was out. The only reason I thought it would be fun was because my wife (at the time) had never seen them (so she wouldn't feel gypped by a stand in) and I'd never seen Aerosmith. I was way more excited about seeing them than Gene and Paul. I'd seen them last on the "farewell" tour in 2001 and they were as flat as Lindsay Wagner. So imagine my surprise when we rolled in late and were walking from parking when I heard the opening chords of Deuce and it sounded as mean and hungry as it did on their reunion tour in 1996. Made me want to run so I wouldn't miss any more. Maybe it was the professional rivalry, but they killed that whole set, and Aerosmith (in comparison and not just because I was once a starry eyed KISS nerd), came across as flat, bored, and completely uninspired. There was no swagger, no testosterone, and no passion at all in their performance.
My ex-wife is a Brit/Europop fan who looked down her nose way more at KISS than Aerosmith, but loved the former's show enough to go again a few years later, and both of us were so unimpressed by the latter that we opted to leave early just to avoid that Long Island concert traffic heading home. And I never leave shows early. Probably just a bad night for them but none of them stood out at all (not even Joe Perry's playing). Totally bummed me out.
-
I totally agree that Kiss is the more disciplined live band - they can be knackered as hell, illness and hate each other, but they still deliver to their best abilities. Kind of like Judas Priest who perform with even half the band stricken by flu and feverish.
There is also an indestructible bond between Stanley and Simmons that goes beyond friendship or even brotherhood - I think their mutual Jewishness has something to do with that.
As a group of people, Aerosmith are a lot more volatile than Kiss and there have been numerous phases in their history - drug-induced or not - where they hated each other's guts to the point of the band not working as a unit anymore. But none of that in Cologne, perhaps because the show was obviousl being filmed and recorded (audience mics everywhere), possibly because Lanxess Arena is all new and has a great sound. Tyler and Perry might not love each other anymore (if they ever did), but there is grudging respect. And Tyler went out of his way to highlight Perry at any point, he even had a short set to himself playing and singing a blues number plus Fleetwood Mac chestnut Oh Well. Which he did with aplomb.
Maybe they just want to leave a good impression on that more likel than not last tour and knuckle down to it in a more disciplined fashion than usual.
That said, I will forever prefer Whitford's more delicate soloing to Perry's flash. Whitford is almost Claptonesque in his impeccable choice of notes, every solo a fine piece of music. His solo ratio is only about 1:3 to Perry), but Perry is a lot more repetetive.
-
Still think Kiss and Kiss fans are a bit silly :popcorn:
:mrgreen:
-
I thought that was Frank Zappa peeking out from behind Cher. Now there's a guy who would relentlessly work an ill band and recorded it for posterity as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdboEI_eAc
Gene and Paul might have a bond because of being Jewish, although everyone from New York acts a little Jewish. Just watch Seinfeld. Joe, Steve and Tom met each other maybe even at an earlier age in the granite state of New Hampshire. Once they got rolling, they played everywhere they could including proms and barns. Those have to be some fairly strong bonds they created from their early days as well.
http://www.newhampshire.com/article/99999999/NEWHAMPSHIRE09/110429373
-
Still think Kiss and Kiss fans are a bit silly :popcorn:
:mrgreen:
Diplomatic today, aren't we?🤝
-
...although everyone from New York acts a little Jewish.
???I can unequivocally state that that isn't true, and watching Seinfeld(of all shows) is a bad example.
"a little Jewish" - (what does that mean exactly). I am sure the Brooklyn Italians would have an opinion on this....
Television is not a good window into reality. When I would go to Washington State on business and meet locals, there were a surprising number of people that were amazed I managed to reach adulthood without getting killed, or at the very least, shot. I'm sure I can thank Law & Order for that....
And when you say New York, be specific. There's a lot more to New York than New York City.
-
Diplomatic today, aren't we?🤝
Don't take the bait! ;D
-
???I can unequivocally state that that isn't true, and watching Seinfeld(of all shows) is a bad example.
"a little Jewish" - (what does that mean exactly). I am sure the Brooklyn Italians would have an opinion on this....
Television is not a good window into reality. When I would go to Washington State on business and meet locals, there were a surprising number of people that were amazed I managed to reach adulthood without getting killed, or at the very least, shot. I'm sure I can thank Law & Order for that....
And when you say New York, be specific. There's a lot more to New York than New York City.
Yes sir, you are correct. I was speaking tongue in cheek with my comments. The five Burroughs are full of all kinds of diverse wonderful people.
-
...and while many people with a Jewish background come from New York City, not all Jews are New Yorkers. The sheer number of Jews settling in the region have made an appreciable impact on the local culture to such an extent that many people's expectations of Jews outside of the city is for them to be all like Woody Allen. I can personally confirm that is not the case being a New Hampshire Jew myself. I may be slightly neurotic in some ways but nothing coming close to Woody and I also enjoy some country music and a hike in the woods occasionally.
-
Rest easy, metalheads...
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/gene-simmons-trademark-devil-horns-withdraw/
-
Rest easy, metalheads...
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/gene-simmons-trademark-devil-horns-withdraw/
Gene was never in the running for that gesture. The University of Texas (known to Aggies as t.u.) has been using it since long before Gene was born.
-
I still say he was never serious about securing that trademark. I wasn't surprised to see that reported at Forbes today. But the name of Gene Simmons and his number one trademark have been all over the news and social media over the last ten days, haven't they? I just wonder if he's got another announcement coming soon (and wanted to prepare the masses for that) or if he just felt lonely over in Europe and wanted to remind everyone he's still around.
-
I still say he was never serious about securing that trademark. I wasn't surprised to see that reported at Forbes today. But the name of Gene Simmons and his number one trademark have been all over the news and social media over the last ten days, haven't they? I just wonder if he's got another announcement coming soon (and wanted to prepare the masses for that) or if he just felt lonely over in Europe and wanted to remind everyone he's still around.
Didn't he used to say "As long as they print a picture"?
-
Exactly. I'm not saying I would be comfortable doing the same thing (I wouldn't), but the idea that any publicity is good publicity in pop culture is not new or completely untrue.
-
Gene was just here for a comic convention Saturday. Watching him take over a live teaser segment from the station where I used to work, literally take the mic away and running way over time and completely dumbfounding the teenage-looking reporter who I doubt even knew who he was... that was funny. My contacts at the show said he was a dick and charged $140k for his MINIMUM appearance guarantee and never talked to anyone who didn't have a tv camera or leave his three armed bodyguards once he was there. And dear Lord, for all the money he has, you'd think he could get a better wig! There's cheap and then there's that..uh...hair???
-
And dear Lord, for all the money he has, you'd think he could get a better wig! There's cheap and then there's that..uh...hair???
I swear, I'll never get that. He and Paul have been "supplementing" their hair about the same length of time (since the 70s, according to Ace), but until the 90s there were few times you'd look at Paul and know for sure (and only now because he doesn't even try to hide going between the shorter and insanely longer/bigger wigs). With Gene, it's been WTF? since at least 1984 and that dead raccoon since the early 90s.
-
Guys, there is no such thing as a "good" wig. Especially on celebrities. The ones they wear on screen are usually very convincing, but that's because there is somebody fussing with them all the time. The "daily driver" always looks exactly like what it is.
I say, "Let it shine". You ain't foolin' nobody.
-
exactly...grow old gracefully
-
From the seldom seen final Monty Python season. Watch the first couple of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie48MBNQ_bY
-
I had friends in the hair era who had pieces that even their groupies didn't know they had. There are great ones, but they're expensive and require a lot of maintenance. Short hair makes it harder to fool the eye, but long hair, real (human) hair in the piece, and a great cut and color once it was placed made it invisible on the guys I knew. Nothing like your (my) brother-in-law's toupee.
At 52, and having been lucky enough not to have needed one (especially after almost 30 years of a fully shaved head being totally acceptable on any white guy not named Telly or Yul), I agree with the idea of letting it go, but I'm not so sure I would have been that sanguine about it in 1986 when I was 21 and surrounded by hair farmers in Hollywood.
-
This discussion is one I'm happy to read from outside the interest group. Just lucky - my dad had a good head of hair when he passed at 78. Out of three brothers, two got his genes, one got my mom's family genes which led to more thinning on top.
;D ;D
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j306/apowell1/Family/Al%20-%20UCEA%202010_zpseuemtjxg.jpg)
-
Here's to good genes! :mrgreen:
-
Here's to good genes! :mrgreen:
*groan*
Pun intended?
-
My hair sure as hell isn't what it used to be (1990 here), but hey, I'm still skinny at 53! So yes, good genes. :toast: I've found it important to go with a cut that suits your available resources. :mrgreen:
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18527538_10210742256531040_5386680873005112082_n.jpg?oh=9c8d425481ca765962436d7c77e4a0d5&oe=59E2BE06)
-
There are great ones, but they're expensive and require a lot of maintenance. Short hair makes it harder to fool the eye, but long hair, real (human) hair in the piece, and a great cut and color once it was placed made it invisible on the guys I knew.
And there's the rub. Most get tired of maintaining their hair helmets. Everything gets old, eventually.
Back in the 80s, I had a musician friend that spent a great deal of money getting a "piece" and was over the moon about the prospects of once again having a hirsute appearance. About a year or so later, the following short conversation took place at a club, where said friend showed up with a beret atop his melon.
Q - You're not wearing your piece - how come?
A - Ah, I got sick of it. It was starting to feel like I was wearing a hat.
Q - What are you wearing right now?
A - >silence<
-
I've found it important to go with a cut that suits your available resources.
Which, in my case, means a cut that allows me to comb my hair with a sponge.
-
A friend of mine from Raleigh told me Cry Of Love leadsinger Kelly Holland quit the band because the record company forced him to wear a wig.
That must have been a tough decision because at that time the band got some heavy rotation on MTV and radio stations across the world...
-
Mid-70ies, nature begins taking its toll, "All I hear is ...
buuuuuuuuuurn baaaaaaaald ...":
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ritchie-blackmore-musiker-gitarrist-gb-auftritt-mit-der-musikgruppe-picture-id544615791)
Later 70ies, the sudden hair miracle following an extensive tour opening for REO Speedwagon, did Kevin Cronin
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wKWhgLoNfb4/UbQcMXSgZQI/AAAAAAAAAnM/cutJ34shw4s/s320/Kevin+Cronin+Then.jpg)
prove inspirational?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/54/74/d2/5474d2a672f2431c4c5d0cf798c68689.jpg)
Curling up in the late 80ies/90ies ...
(http://www.monsters-of-rock-germany.de/s/cc_images/teaserbox_2461969045.png?t=1447151920)
Once you have left the age of 70 behind you, a little grey just adds to that natural look ...
(http://assets.teamrock.com/image/3faab431-ddfa-452a-ae4f-0a2d1d436085?w=800)
-
Long live rug and roll...
-
*groan*
Pun intended?
Ha ha! No. That Gene is hopeless.
-
Q - You're not wearing your piece - how come?
A - Ah, I got sick of it. It was starting to feel like I was wearing a hat.
Q - What are you wearing right now?
A - >silence<
:mrgreen: