KNAC.COM: Will KISS record again?

Stanley: It's possible. You know the problem with KISS recording is that the songs that everybody thinks of as the classics are much more than music at this point, they are really, I guess like snapshots of a point in somebody's life. People remember what they were doing when they heard a certain song. People remember who they were with, who they were screwing, whatever they were doing, so it makes those songs much bigger than just playing music. The problem with that is that no matter what, KISS would go in and record today, it's never going to measure up to that. Not because it's not as good, but because it doesn't have the history. I mean, you go to a (ROLLING) STONES concert, and truthfully, you tolerate the new songs, but you're not there to hear them, you're waiting to hear "Brown Sugar", you're waiting to hear "Honky Tonk Woman". It's just a matter of whether or not you're willing to accept that. Some bands want to continue making new music for their own creativity. I respect that. I just wonder if I'm up to putting that amount of effort into an album only to have people listening to say, "Oh, well, that's really nice. Play "Love Gun". (Laughs) So if I can reconcile that then I'd go back in, but I would want, you know, I would pretty much at this point, if we did a KISS album I would want to control it. You know, I'm not really in a place now where I want to compromise or dilute an album for anyone's quota of songs or anything like that. At this point I'd really want, I'd pretty much want to steer it.

What he says makes sense to me.

CrazyDadda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KNAC.COM: Will KISS record again?
>
> I mean, you go to a (ROLLING)
> STONES concert, and truthfully, you tolerate the
> new songs, but you're not there to hear them,
> you're waiting to hear "Brown Sugar", you're
> waiting to hear "Honky Tonk Woman".


what a jerk: just further evidence of KISS's artistic bankruptcy.

i hate how he attempts to speak for everyone: I, for one, and a lot more people I know would be happy if they never had to endure HTW again!

He's right in terms of speaking for the majority. If it was up to me HTW should be replaced in the setlist faster than I could take my coat off

its true
he can't speak for everyone...
but for the majority i do believe he is right...

especially about how songs carry memories with them and are associated with certain periods of your life. that is usually why when older bands... kiss, U2, rolling stones, eagles etc... put out new music, it may be good, but hardly feels the same as their older stuff. i think bigger bang is a great album, but it doesn't feel in the same league as the other stones material, because it is what i grew up listening to and it holds more 'personal history with me' than the new tunes. they haven't had the time to dwell, age and distill with me.

i can't believe it, im agreeing with paul stanley

canadian.sway Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> i can't believe it, im agreeing with paul stanley


haha. there's a simple solution for that: DON'T!

That´s true what he says. Even if the Stones produces a masterpiece today, most people just compares it with their earlier albums and dismisses it. There are people on this board who thinks Emotional Rescue is a great album. If the Stones did a record like that today, I think people would laugh it off as a joke.

I love Kiss and I think Paul Staley rocks but I think he's very wrong there and I'm very sorry, as a Kiss fan, that he thinks like that. It's kinda sad, and it shows that maybe he doesn't have the creative hunger some of his heroes and my heroes still have. U2 and Bruce Springsteen are the perfect example of the opposite way of thinking of Paul Stanley. And one can say that both U2 and Springsteen are nowadays more interesting, respected and relevant than Kiss and maybe that different point of view of them is the reason why. Those artists have quite a few songs that have that classical power and that attract big audiences for themselves alone but yet they keep writing music that is as hungry and as alive as the older ones, and, in my opinion, of the same quality. Loads of people relate to U2's All That You Can't Leave Behind, which is from 2000 and loads of people relate to Springsteen's The Rising, which is from 2002/3. And that's because they are great albums that came from the heart. Just like Kiss' Destroyer for example. If Kiss puts effort and a lot of heart into a new album than I think they can create great music, specially if they try and write music as good as that old ones, case if they do than people will relate to it and will have their own stories with that new music in the future.

By the way Psycho Circus is a great album even if it's not a real Kiss album.


Sad, sad, sad...

on the surface it's like comparing the monkees with hendrix...
kiss had a couple of good albums; stones have many great albums...
it shows his artistic bankruptcy, already in evidence for some thirty years...
unless 'lick it up' is your idea of good rock and roll.
the stones were hot as a pistol from '62 to '78 mininimally, with moments of greatness on each and every subsequent tour. kiss had a couple of good albums in thirty years or more ago.
if kiss put all their heart and soul into writing and delivering a new record it would sound like crap because they have very little heart and zero soul.
what were talking about again?
oh yeh; the stones should be more careful with their legacy.
that monkees twenty years monkee reunion sold out everywhere...large bunch of background musicians and 3 original doofs, two half-talented stood in front of them and the crowds were ever so happy...now that's reach rock and roll for the ages right? we should check with peter tork next; see if he has some insight.

It seems the Stones dismiss their newer songs too. They will do a couple from whatever album the're touring behind but never anything from previous recent albums. Why, for example, forget about a good solid rocker like "I Go Wild"?

Not too sure about I Go Wild...but Flip the Switch had the makings of a live classic.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not too sure about I Go Wild...but Flip the Switch
> had the makings of a live classic.


hell yeah; i would have loved to have seen this on the B stage during the ABB tour. superb version on the st. louis bridges dvd

*everybody need a little help sometime!*

Stanley is just not a fan.

If anyone here remembers how the new songs Saint Of Me
and Out Of Control were the highlights here in Europe 1998 - how can you
really think that most of the people don´t want new songs? Asked before the
shows 95% would have said: "No, I don´t need them". But during and after the
songs the whole crowd went nuts. That was a great experience, the Stones
got the crowd going with new songs.

I think some of the naysayers are missing Stanley's point. I agree with what he says in principal. The majority of the people attending a Stones show don't want to hear the new songs. They want to hear the warhorses. It's us, the hardcore fans, that are tired of the warhorses.

He's right

We need some perspective. I think his talkinag about the causal fan that goes to the one gig in his home town. For that he might be right.

But for us who take planes, trains and hotel rooms all over the place SURELY we want to hear the new stuff, this Kiss guy can't talk about me. Would never agree with him.

leteyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We need some perspective. I think his talkinag
> about the causal fan that goes to the one gig in
> his home town. For that he might be right.
>
> But for us who take planes, trains and hotel rooms
> all over the place SURELY we want to hear the new
> stuff, this Kiss guy can't talk about me. Would
> never agree with him.


Yes I agree with you but I think we, the hardcore fans, are in the minority here. I think the majority of people in attendance at a Stones show, especially a stadium show, are probably the casual fans.

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stanley is just not a fan.
>

Of course he is. Mick isnt. This is just an interview and he gives the professional's opinion about other another professional act. Means nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-18 19:13 by LA FORUM.

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That´s true what he says. Even if the Stones
> produces a masterpiece today, most people just
> compares it with their earlier albums and
> dismisses it. There are people on this board who
> thinks Emotional Rescue is a great album. If the
> Stones did a record like that today, I think
> people would laugh it off as a joke.

Absolutely! Many felt it was the end of the Stones (studio-wise) when Rescue was released.
I was 17 and remember my friends and I listening to it and saying "What kind of disco crap is this?"

I would rather hear the Sones play HTW or BS rather than ONNYA and other ABB tunes, so Stanley is right there, but there are many many other Stones songs I'd rather hear than those wahorses.

He is absolutely right. And you can say the same thing about almost any act that's been around for 20 years or more. And the Stones attitude and their audience has changed a lot since even 1998. Bridges To Babylon sold a few million in the U.S. while A Bigger Bang just barely scratched Gold.

U2, Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen are anomolies and don't even come close to representing the majority of so-called legacy acts in the way they approach their live show.

For example it was a damn near scandal when Iron Maiden played their whole new album in it's entirety last year.

Speaking of which, if a new KISS album had a decent chance of selling even what Psycho Circus sold (considered a flop back then) I am sure they would be in the studio.

Back in 1998 I was at the Airport and saw Gene Simmons waiting for a commercial flight alone, he sat behind me on the bench in the terminal and we started talking for a good 30 minutes. It was a freak chance meeting out of the blue.

I am a Kiss fan (I do not go to shows in makeup) and have seen them quite a few times and saw the tour they were on at the time earlier that week. I asked him why they were only playing 3 songs off their new album and I suggested a song I felt would work well live off of that album (Psycho Circus) He pretty much said what Paul Stanley said above (people want to hear the old stuff). When I said "the hits" he said Kiss only had a couple "hits" rest were just popular. The rest of the time we chatted about the new Kiss website (he knew the approx number of people who paid for a membership) that launched a month earlier and tour merchandising. He was not bothered talking about it.

He asked me where the coffee shop is, I pointed in the direction and even offered to get it for him. He declined my offer, when he got up to buy coffee himself I told him I'd watch his carry-on if he'd like. He said no thanks. Can't really blame him. Anyway...he came back 5 minutes later and sat back down and we continued talking.

What was amusing was that besides myself nobody recognized him. At one point an old man who was near by and a little drunk started talking to us with non-sense chit chat. That was fine until the old man said to Gene "Let me tell you something about women". Gene and I looked at each other and burst out laughing. The old man started blurting out "who do you think you are?" while looking at Gene. I looked the man straight in the eye and said "You are talking to the God of Thunder and King of the Night Time World". This confused him and he left us alone. Gene did not look amused that I said that. A couple minutes later they pre-boarded his flight and said goodbye. I guess I should have let him speak for himself.

Bottom line...Bands play what the majority of the audience wants to hear. I Think only U2, Springsteen and Rush can get away with playing 1/3 of a set of new material. Their fanbase likes the fact they are still putting out new material.

trainarollin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Bottom line...Bands play what the majority of the
> audience wants to hear. I Think only U2,
> Springsteen and Rush can get away with playing 1/3
> of a set of new material. Their fanbase likes the
> fact they are still putting out new material.


cool story . . . but, where is the evidence for this claim you make the end? just because the stones have gone a particular way (warhorse boulevard) doesn't mean they have no choice!

oh, and even if you are right, and the majority of "fans" don't want to hear new tunes, that's still not an excuse not to! any "artist" worth his salt occasionally challenges his audience!

*everybody need a little help sometime!*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-18 20:52 by The Biggest Bong.

I would like the Stones to play 2-3 newer songs per show. If they would, there would be a huge line for the hotdogs by people who do not respect an artists effort in their newest creation. That's the way it is...

The Biggest Bong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> cool story . . . but, where is the evidence for
> this claim you make the end? just because the
> stones have gone a particular way (warhorse
> boulevard) doesn't mean they have no choice!
>
> oh, and even if you are right, and the majority of
> "fans" don't want to hear new tunes, that's still
> not an excuse not to! any "artist" worth his salt
> occasionally challenges his audience!

I agree with you there but also keep in mind for most bands touring is a living, they can't count on royalties anymore so making sure the audience is satisfied and playing what they want to hear is a priority so hopefully some of them will come back next time.

Train - That is a good story. Seriously. However, (not as seriously) you should put it to music. The song that comes to mind is Same Old Lang Syne by the recently departed Dan Folgelberg because that's the score that was running through my mind as I was reading it.

I met Gene Simmons in an airport lounge
while we were waiting for a flight
He sat behind me on a bench
and then we talked for half an hour

Nobody recognized his face but me
but then, I really am a fan
Was an old man who wished to tell us 'bout women
And we laughed until we cried

...

Well I think you get the idea. I really think it would work.

This guy speaks sense,and he rocks.Long live KISS.

hmmmm....I may have to try that song arrangement for open - stage.

it makes sence to a casual fan, not a diehard thats the point that stanley was missing, i dont go to a show to hear warhorses, so in my opinion he is wrong

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it makes sence to a casual fan, not a diehard
> thats the point that stanley was missing, i dont
> go to a show to hear warhorses, so in my opinion
> he is wrong

Sure but I think in 35 years he has a sense of what the audience wants. He has been on both sides of the fence. Right before the reunion they were playing rarity filled sets to small crowds so he knows a lot about what the die hards want as they were the audience that sustained them on life support for 15 years.

The audience and the concert experience in general has changed a lot in that time too, even from when I first started going in the '80's. Gene and Paul saw the Stones Budokan show so perhaps he has even more perspective there.

The book "KISS & SELL - THE MAKING OF A SUPERGROUP" is an interesting read. It was written by one of their former business managers who was with them from the mid 70's to approx 1988. The bands manager during the 70's made bad business and investment decisions. Even if not in the music field, it's an interesting read from someone who was in the inner circle and does not reley on sensationalism.