I've always thought this clown is a.....clown. He tends to shoot his mouth off a bit


[]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-29 23:31 by keithglimmer.

To be fair to Simmons he said they WOULD be like little girls if they dressed up in that silly costume he wears.

Quote
keithglimmer
To be fair to Simmons he said they WOULD be like little girls if they dressed up in that silly costume he wears.

Ah yes, but why spoil a good thread title with a bit of accuracy?

Rod

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
keithglimmer
To be fair to Simmons he said they WOULD be like little girls if they dressed up in that silly costume he wears.

Ah yes, but why spoil a good thread title with a bit of accuracy?

yeah even in the interview he throws praise at those guys and indirectly puts his actual music talent down. its easier though to just write a clickbait headline

gene many times has thrown tons of praise on the stones and beatles and many other bands

Simmons is just frustrated over the sexual battery charges...


[www.iheartradio.ca]


And he settles


[www.spin.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-29 18:04 by More Hot Rocks.

He is a clown - a reality show to promote himself

Gene had problems with Ace - here Ace doing a great cover of 2000 Man


KISS: 2000 Man (NYC ~ Aug 9, 1995

[www.youtube.com]

Mick would kick Gene's ass any day of the week!

Quote
OpenG
Gene had problems with Ace - here Ace doing a great cover of 2000 Man


KISS: 2000 Man (NYC ~ Aug 9, 1995

[www.youtube.com]

Not really. No better than your local bar band.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Simmons is just frustrated over the sexual battery charges...


[www.iheartradio.ca]


And he settles


[www.spin.com]

What a pig

Chaim Witz is just a shameless self-promoter, nothing more.

U2 and the Stones still play stadiums, while KISS has to settle for arenas and amphitheaters these days, so maybe his business acumen isn't as legendary as he thinks it is.

Misleading thread title...and he was talking about the weight of his outfits.

Quote
Jah Paul
Misleading thread title...and he was talking about the weight of his outfits.

exactly and people then bash him still. I can probably find a dozen interviews by gene with nonstop praise for the stones and jagger. he is talking about nothing more than the weight of the costume and makes it sound like that's part of the reason they are hanging it up after this farewell tour

thats kiss with a P.....

What, should he get a medal for wearing a costume? Whose fault is it that he was forced to start wearing the costumes again?

First of all, I seriously doubt it weighs as much as he says, and secondly, all he does is lumber around onstage. He has no moves aside from sticking his tongue out, lighting a torch and getting hauled up to the rafters.

Skill-wise, what Mick does far exceeds Gene.

I laughed out loud at this line
"...So the idea is go out with some dignity."
I don't see what Simmons does in that stupid costume (at 69) as dignified in any way. Moves like Simmons? I think not.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Simmons is just frustrated over the sexual battery charges...


[www.iheartradio.ca]


And he settles


[www.spin.com]

And gets sued again


[pitchfork.com]

i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.


so it will always appear that u2 have done more, done it bigger, made more etc and people will think they are the better band.

what u2 have skillfully done too is their historical setlist. over 900 songs played live, but over 400 are just snippets. even tells you on u2,s official site, individual concerts, or individual songs and whats been snippeted, it actually uses the word snippeted, and they have done it a lot. if u2 only set out to beat the stones regarding stats it wont work, u2 lost their soul in the joshua tree concert gigs, completely missing out so many songs that made them the band they were, and inserting 7 joshua tree songs and 4 snippeted songs to total 20. snippeted songs lasts for seconds, and the first 4 albums were only represented by 5 songs during the joshua tree concerts in 1987. i saw them in glasgow then, felt the setlist was all wrong and quickly got out of u2 as quickly as i got into the stones. thier total repertoire of songs played live by snippeting half the total lost them my respect.

to me the stones will always be better,and i feel bono cant handle that. i love u2 early days, they left behind everything that was good about them too quickly. theres just no competition.

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.


so it will always appear that u2 have done more, done it bigger, made more etc and people will think they are the better band.

what u2 have skillfully done too is their historical setlist. over 900 songs played live, but over 400 are just snippets. even tells you on u2,s official site, individual concerts, or individual songs and whats been snippeted, it actually uses the word snippeted, and they have done it a lot. if u2 only set out to beat the stones regarding stats it wont work, u2 lost their soul in the joshua tree concert gigs, completely missing out so many songs that made them the band they were, and inserting 7 joshua tree songs and 4 snippeted songs to total 20. snippeted songs lasts for seconds, and the first 4 albums were only represented by 5 songs during the joshua tree concerts in 1987. i saw them in glasgow then, felt the setlist was all wrong and quickly got out of u2 as quickly as i got into the stones. thier total repertoire of songs played live by snippeting half the total lost them my respect.

to me the stones will always be better,and i feel bono cant handle that. i love u2 early days, they left behind everything that was good about them too quickly. theres just no competition.

Not strange that U2 put a lot of songs from Joshua Tree in the setlist, after all they were promoting the album.
They also did a lot more than 4 songs from the 4 first albums during the tour.

Boy: I Will Follow, Out of Control and The Electric Co.
October: October and Gloria.
War: 40, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day.
The Unforgettable Fire: Pride, A Sort of Homecoming, MLK, The Unforgettable Fire and Bad
Also two early singles: 11 O'Clock Tick Tock and Party Girl

That makes not 4 but 15 songs from the area before Joshua Tree. And they did 10 songs from Joshua Tree,not on every show ofcourse. Only song not to be performed was Red Hill Mining Town.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-30 00:41 by bobo.

There may be a perception of competition between the Stones and U2 because they did massive stadium tours from the '80s - '00s within a year or two of each other multiple times, and both used Mark Fisher as their main stage architect.

Fisher designed both the ABB stage AND the U2 360 "claw" design, which are #1 and #3 all time to this day (G'N'R just bested ABB #2).

So the only competition may be who's the biggest/best over-the-top stadium act of all time, but other than that, I don't see any musical competition.

Quote
keithglimmer

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Simmons is just frustrated over the sexual battery charges...


[www.iheartradio.ca]


And he settles



[www.spin.com]

And gets sued again


[pitchfork.com]

What a pig again

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.


so it will always appear that u2 have done more, done it bigger, made more etc and people will think they are the better band.

what u2 have skillfully done too is their historical setlist. over 900 songs played live, but over 400 are just snippets. even tells you on u2,s official site, individual concerts, or individual songs and whats been snippeted, it actually uses the word snippeted, and they have done it a lot. if u2 only set out to beat the stones regarding stats it wont work, u2 lost their soul in the joshua tree concert gigs, completely missing out so many songs that made them the band they were, and inserting 7 joshua tree songs and 4 snippeted songs to total 20. snippeted songs lasts for seconds, and the first 4 albums were only represented by 5 songs during the joshua tree concerts in 1987. i saw them in glasgow then, felt the setlist was all wrong and quickly got out of u2 as quickly as i got into the stones. thier total repertoire of songs played live by snippeting half the total lost them my respect.

to me the stones will always be better,and i feel bono cant handle that. i love u2 early days, they left behind everything that was good about them too quickly. theres just no competition.

U2 have never claimed to be bigger than the Stones. What U2 did was DESTROY the Stones' biggest tour record ever with one tour, financially by show 74 and attendance wise by show 76 or something like that. That just shows that demand to see U2 was greater than it was for the Stones at that time and that U2 were smart about handling it.

That's just fact. That doesn't make them "better", just that they did something bigger sooner once and it was a huge accomplishment. Your opinion of U2 has zero relevance with that. Your opinion that Bono "can't handle that" about what all you jibber on about is absurd. It's not competition. The venues are happy to have them whenever they come around, just like any good/great attendance demanding band/act.

It's not 1965. Some people grow up about music, others stay stuck in some teenage wasteland. Enjoy it.

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.

I remember this was said about Michael Jackson too. But ..... he didn't prevail.
It's just silly to make these comparisons. The Stones are the Stones: unique ... and they are the teachers, and U2 is U2: unique ... and they are the students. This will never change as long as the sun keeps shining and the human race prevails

Not that it's a competition, but...

I would bet the metric of average price per ticket paid by concert-goer is significantly higher for an RS show than a U2 show.

Assuming that's true, far more people able to see a U2 show than RS because of the lower prices, on average. Liquidity of demand. RS make almost as much money as U2 with far less effort, which makes sense for them, given their age.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.

I remember this was said about Michael Jackson too. But ..... he didn't prevail.
It's just silly to make these comparisons. The Stones are the Stones: unique ... and they are the teachers, and U2 is U2: unique ... and they are the students. This will never change as long as the sun keeps shining and the human race prevails

This.

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.


so it will always appear that u2 have done more, done it bigger, made more etc and people will think they are the better band.

what u2 have skillfully done too is their historical setlist. over 900 songs played live, but over 400 are just snippets. even tells you on u2,s official site, individual concerts, or individual songs and whats been snippeted, it actually uses the word snippeted, and they have done it a lot. if u2 only set out to beat the stones regarding stats it wont work, u2 lost their soul in the joshua tree concert gigs, completely missing out so many songs that made them the band they were, and inserting 7 joshua tree songs and 4 snippeted songs to total 20. snippeted songs lasts for seconds, and the first 4 albums were only represented by 5 songs during the joshua tree concerts in 1987. i saw them in glasgow then, felt the setlist was all wrong and quickly got out of u2 as quickly as i got into the stones. thier total repertoire of songs played live by snippeting half the total lost them my respect.

to me the stones will always be better,and i feel bono cant handle that. i love u2 early days, they left behind everything that was good about them too quickly. theres just no competition.

What are you on about with the snippets? The snippets add to the songs themselves. They are a welcome addition. For example Ruby Tuesday/Sympathy For The Devil in Bad. Lots of fans have their favourite snippets.

The snippets are not on the setlist 99% of the time, they are improvised by Bono and do not count as "proper" songs on the setlist.

For example:

1. Bad / Ruby Tuesday (snippet) / Sympathy For The Devil (snippet)
2. Pride (In The Name Of Love)

Plus it is obvious that they would promote The Joshua Tree on The Joshua Tree Tour, no?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.


so it will always appear that u2 have done more, done it bigger, made more etc and people will think they are the better band.

what u2 have skillfully done too is their historical setlist. over 900 songs played live, but over 400 are just snippets. even tells you on u2,s official site, individual concerts, or individual songs and whats been snippeted, it actually uses the word snippeted, and they have done it a lot. if u2 only set out to beat the stones regarding stats it wont work, u2 lost their soul in the joshua tree concert gigs, completely missing out so many songs that made them the band they were, and inserting 7 joshua tree songs and 4 snippeted songs to total 20. snippeted songs lasts for seconds, and the first 4 albums were only represented by 5 songs during the joshua tree concerts in 1987. i saw them in glasgow then, felt the setlist was all wrong and quickly got out of u2 as quickly as i got into the stones. thier total repertoire of songs played live by snippeting half the total lost them my respect.

to me the stones will always be better,and i feel bono cant handle that. i love u2 early days, they left behind everything that was good about them too quickly. theres just no competition.

U2 have never claimed to be bigger than the Stones. What U2 did was DESTROY the Stones' biggest tour record ever with one tour, financially by show 74 and attendance wise by show 76 or something like that. That just shows that demand to see U2 was greater than it was for the Stones at that time and that U2 were smart about handling it.

That's just fact. That doesn't make them "better", just that they did something bigger sooner once and it was a huge accomplishment. Your opinion of U2 has zero relevance with that. Your opinion that Bono "can't handle that" about what all you jibber on about is absurd. It's not competition. The venues are happy to have them whenever they come around, just like any good/great attendance demanding band/act.

It's not 1965. Some people grow up about music, others stay stuck in some teenage wasteland. Enjoy it.

Hey, leave The Who out of it. They put on great shows in those days.

1. Who cares what Gene Simmons has to say about anything?

2. Re: U2. Whatever your feelings about the band are (I happen to like them a great DEal) you really do have to give them credit for at least 2 things. They have come up with some of the most innovative staging. And - can you think of any other band that’s been around as long, that has always been just the 4 same guys? I honestly can’t think of any other, at least one in the same league.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-31 05:08 by DEmerson.

Quote
GasLightStreet
U2 have never claimed to be bigger than the Stones...

Yeap. On the last tour, during each show, Bono said "We are the greatest rock'n'roll band on the north side of Dublin!" Also Bono's regular speech ending with: "You are no rock'n'roll star, you are Paul!" "What? Paul is dead, I am @#$%& Bono!" was sweet.

I think U2 (through Bono), especially in the last years, show great sense of humor and irony about themselves. And I am sure they feel nothig but great respect towards The Stones. It was obvious when Mick did Gimme Shelster and Stuck In The Moment with them - Mick was clearly the star and U2 did the best to create a funcioning unit with him for those two songs. The Edge played nice U2-ish guitar on GS. Great moment.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
buttons67
i think bono always sees the stones as a competition, and maybe thats why the stones have continued for as long, but based on stats u2 will always prevail because they overlap by about 16 years, thats 16 years u2 can play more stadiums, charge higher prices due to inflation and get more hits on social media, spotify,downloads etc which counts as a unit of sales.


so it will always appear that u2 have done more, done it bigger, made more etc and people will think they are the better band.

what u2 have skillfully done too is their historical setlist. over 900 songs played live, but over 400 are just snippets. even tells you on u2,s official site, individual concerts, or individual songs and whats been snippeted, it actually uses the word snippeted, and they have done it a lot. if u2 only set out to beat the stones regarding stats it wont work, u2 lost their soul in the joshua tree concert gigs, completely missing out so many songs that made them the band they were, and inserting 7 joshua tree songs and 4 snippeted songs to total 20. snippeted songs lasts for seconds, and the first 4 albums were only represented by 5 songs during the joshua tree concerts in 1987. i saw them in glasgow then, felt the setlist was all wrong and quickly got out of u2 as quickly as i got into the stones. thier total repertoire of songs played live by snippeting half the total lost them my respect.

to me the stones will always be better,and i feel bono cant handle that. i love u2 early days, they left behind everything that was good about them too quickly. theres just no competition.

U2 have never claimed to be bigger than the Stones. What U2 did was DESTROY the Stones' biggest tour record ever with one tour, financially by show 74 and attendance wise by show 76 or something like that. That just shows that demand to see U2 was greater than it was for the Stones at that time and that U2 were smart about handling it.

That's just fact. That doesn't make them "better", just that they did something bigger sooner once and it was a huge accomplishment. Your opinion of U2 has zero relevance with that. Your opinion that Bono "can't handle that" about what all you jibber on about is absurd. It's not competition. The venues are happy to have them whenever they come around, just like any good/great attendance demanding band/act.

It's not 1965. Some people grow up about music, others stay stuck in some teenage wasteland. Enjoy it.

Hi Max, I am sure you do know that it was Mick Jagger who adviced Bono (U2) to take advantage of the fast experience of the Stones in terms of how to approach concerts and on how to deal with the fast amounts of money generated from those concerts (and other stuff like mergandise). U2 had similar problems with the Irish tax people and Beatles, Stones, etc. had with the British. So U2 was housed in the Stones office in Amsterdam to LEARN and grow bigger. Any decent father would be proud to see his son do better than he did. No silly "they destroyed" or "they attrack more" or anything. U2 is greatful to the Stones for their help!