For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
dcbaQuote
dead.flowers
That's horrible!
Yeah KISS's success is a true mystery.
Ace and Gene go ok, jesus they were bigger than the Stones in late 70's early 80s...
Why do people make claims like this all the time. No they were not. They were never bigger then the Stones. Sounds like one of those behind the music shows where they claim everyone at one point was bigger then the Beatles.
When did Kiss play stadiums?
Yes, I've listened to podcasts with him where he comes off as very intelligent.Quote
Jah PaulQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
RollingFreakQuote
Stoneage
Isn't this very close to prostitution? Or are they giving away their earnings to charity?
Gene and Charity LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Listen, Gene (and the rest of them) are money loving whores and will do anything for it (despite Ace and Peter claiming they have integrity, I'm a big fan but they really are the same as Gene and Paul), but I gotta say, if fans will pay for it who are really the ones to laugh at in this scenario? Its kind of yet another example of how Gene is a genius, knowing that people will pay for this crap. Its kinda the saddest state of our human race.
gene gives a ton to charity
Indeed...met him a couple of times at different events for children's charities - despite the bombast of his public persona, he's really a decent guy.
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
dcbaQuote
dead.flowers
That's horrible!
Yeah KISS's success is a true mystery.
Ace and Gene go ok, jesus they were bigger than the Stones in late 70's early 80s...
Why do people make claims like this all the time. No they were not. They were never bigger then the Stones. Sounds like one of those behind the music shows where they claim everyone at one point was bigger then the Beatles.
When did Kiss play stadiums?
haha...maybe it was a typo
but they were bigger than the Stones in Australia in 1979/1980 period.
You only have to see the footage of KISS in Australia in 1980 to see that.
Stadiums??? well they played VFL park - which is a footy stadium in Melbourne and drew the biggest crowd ever (australia/NZ) when they were in Australia in 1980...the Stones in 1973 didnt play stadiums.
I don't get that comment anyway....so you need to play stadiums to be "big" ???
That was back in 2003...saw that show, and it was in an amphitheater, not a stadium.Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
dcbaQuote
dead.flowers
That's horrible!
Yeah KISS's success is a true mystery.
Ace and Gene go ok, jesus they were bigger than the Stones in late 70's early 80s...
Why do people make claims like this all the time. No they were not. They were never bigger then the Stones. Sounds like one of those behind the music shows where they claim everyone at one point was bigger then the Beatles.
When did Kiss play stadiums?
haha...maybe it was a typo
but they were bigger than the Stones in Australia in 1979/1980 period.
You only have to see the footage of KISS in Australia in 1980 to see that.
Stadiums??? well they played VFL park - which is a footy stadium in Melbourne and drew the biggest crowd ever (australia/NZ) when they were in Australia in 1980...the Stones in 1973 didnt play stadiums.
I don't get that comment anyway....so you need to play stadiums to be "big" ???
I've heard of them playing stadiums now and then but never, ever to the extent that the Stones have. Didn't they do some stadiums when they toured with Aerosmith some years back?
Quote
keefriff99Yes, I've listened to podcasts with him where he comes off as very intelligent.Quote
Jah PaulQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
RollingFreakQuote
Stoneage
Isn't this very close to prostitution? Or are they giving away their earnings to charity?
Gene and Charity LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Listen, Gene (and the rest of them) are money loving whores and will do anything for it (despite Ace and Peter claiming they have integrity, I'm a big fan but they really are the same as Gene and Paul), but I gotta say, if fans will pay for it who are really the ones to laugh at in this scenario? Its kind of yet another example of how Gene is a genius, knowing that people will pay for this crap. Its kinda the saddest state of our human race.
gene gives a ton to charity
Indeed...met him a couple of times at different events for children's charities - despite the bombast of his public persona, he's really a decent guy.
But when he's in his "act" mode, he's utterly repellent and I have no use for him. He also got banned from Fox News studios last year for being a boorish lout with the staff (both male and female).
I mean, how bad do you have to act to get banned from FOX NEWS? That's like being banned from a frat house for Chrissakes.
Quote
Redhotcarpet
The idea that Kiss is all fake, that their success solely relies on something Bill Aucoin and Howard Marks created stems from the Rolling carved in Stone perspective on Kiss and on rock music as an art form untouched by Ad men. As if Brian Epstein, Oldham or Warhol didn’t create their brands. The Stones hired Miller to help create a larger than life image with anthems often based on existing songs just like Kiss did when they hired Bob Ezrin.
How did Velvet make it? Yes they are better and Kiss is shite in comparison but they made it thanks to a greatest advertiser, the man who invented himself, Warhol. A Gene Simmons of the 60s. From soup cans to lunch boxes.
When I hear Gene actually play great bass lines that dont sound like Buffalo farts and realize he wrote some really good riffs, some great songs and…many not so great songs Im just as surprised as when i saw that clip of Jagger playing Brown sugar on guitar. Or I can’t be satisfied. And all this time he pretended it was all about business.
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
dcbaQuote
dead.flowers
That's horrible!
Yeah KISS's success is a true mystery.
Ace and Gene go ok, jesus they were bigger than the Stones in late 70's early 80s...
Why do people make claims like this all the time. No they were not. They were never bigger then the Stones. Sounds like one of those behind the music shows where they claim everyone at one point was bigger then the Beatles.
When did Kiss play stadiums?
haha...maybe it was a typo
but they were bigger than the Stones in Australia in 1979/1980 period.
You only have to see the footage of KISS in Australia in 1980 to see that.
Stadiums??? well they played VFL park - which is a footy stadium in Melbourne and drew the biggest crowd ever (australia/NZ) when they were in Australia in 1980...the Stones in 1973 didnt play stadiums.
I don't get that comment anyway....so you need to play stadiums to be "big" ???
Quote
Redhotcarpet
And s bad example of how good they are.
Quote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
dcbaQuote
dead.flowers
That's horrible!
Yeah KISS's success is a true mystery.
Ace and Gene go ok, jesus they were bigger than the Stones in late 70's early 80s...
Why do people make claims like this all the time. No they were not. They were never bigger then the Stones. Sounds like one of those behind the music shows where they claim everyone at one point was bigger then the Beatles.
When did Kiss play stadiums?
haha...maybe it was a typo
but they were bigger than the Stones in Australia in 1979/1980 period.
You only have to see the footage of KISS in Australia in 1980 to see that.
Stadiums??? well they played VFL park - which is a footy stadium in Melbourne and drew the biggest crowd ever (australia/NZ) when they were in Australia in 1980...the Stones in 1973 didnt play stadiums.
I don't get that comment anyway....so you need to play stadiums to be "big" ???
This is when the internet gets frustrating. People cannot follow a conversation and it happens all the time. Lets recap. Someone for some reason tried to claim that at one point Kiss was bigger then the Stones. This is when I asked when Kiss played Stadiums. I should not have to explain why that question matters.
Your comment that you don't need to play stadiums to be big is a meaningless statement. I never said they were not big. I said they were never bigger then than the Stones.
One more thing. Why are you comparing what the Stones were doing in 1973 to what Kiss was doing in 1980? That also was meaningless.
If you are trying to make the point that Kiss was bigger in Australia then the Stones were in 1980 then say that. I would guess that might not even be true but Certainly they were never a bigger band world wide and it was never even close.
Quote
deardoctor
Kiss are so much better than the stones!
They are the REAL fab four
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
stanloveQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
dcbaQuote
dead.flowers
That's horrible!
Yeah KISS's success is a true mystery.
Ace and Gene go ok, jesus they were bigger than the Stones in late 70's early 80s...
Why do people make claims like this all the time. No they were not. They were never bigger then the Stones. Sounds like one of those behind the music shows where they claim everyone at one point was bigger then the Beatles.
When did Kiss play stadiums?
haha...maybe it was a typo
but they were bigger than the Stones in Australia in 1979/1980 period.
You only have to see the footage of KISS in Australia in 1980 to see that.
Stadiums??? well they played VFL park - which is a footy stadium in Melbourne and drew the biggest crowd ever (australia/NZ) when they were in Australia in 1980...the Stones in 1973 didnt play stadiums.
I don't get that comment anyway....so you need to play stadiums to be "big" ???
This is when the internet gets frustrating. People cannot follow a conversation and it happens all the time. Lets recap. Someone for some reason tried to claim that at one point Kiss was bigger then the Stones. This is when I asked when Kiss played Stadiums. I should not have to explain why that question matters.
Your comment that you don't need to play stadiums to be big is a meaningless statement. I never said they were not big. I said they were never bigger then than the Stones.
One more thing. Why are you comparing what the Stones were doing in 1973 to what Kiss was doing in 1980? That also was meaningless.
If you are trying to make the point that Kiss was bigger in Australia then the Stones were in 1980 then say that. I would guess that might not even be true but Certainly they were never a bigger band world wide and it was never even close.
They were the biggest band in America in 1977/1978. Of course they re not on par with the Stones but they really were huge in ghe US and later in Australia and Europe.
Quote
stanlove
Who was the biggest band in the US 77/78?
Quote
Redhotcarpet
I dont know how one can judge these things but exposure I guess. Velvet Underground is the most influential band second to the Beatles. They sold nothing, had zero hits and played small venues.
Quote
Stoneage
There is something with the concept that is unappealing to me. Celebrities visiting the homes of rich people and performing at birthdays or whatever for huge stacks of money.
Celebrities for rent so to say. There is something tacky about it. Or am I the only one thinking like this?
It's amazing how tone-deaf some Stones fans are. The only difference between the Stones and KISS when it comes to greed is that Gene (and Paul to a lesser extent) is honest about it.Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
Stoneage
There is something with the concept that is unappealing to me. Celebrities visiting the homes of rich people and performing at birthdays or whatever for huge stacks of money.
Celebrities for rent so to say. There is something tacky about it. Or am I the only one thinking like this?
like the stones doing private shows?