the book at amazon-
https://www.amazon.com/Face-Music-Exposed-Paul-Stanley/dp/0062114042
"Before Kiss, Paul Stanley was in a local band, Rainbow (not to be confused with Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow) and was also a member of Uncle Joe and Post War Baby Boom. Through a mutual friend of Gene Simmons', Stanley joined Simmons' band Wicked Lester in the early 1970s. The band recorded an album in 1972, but as of 2009 it has never been officially released (although songs from the album appeared on Kiss's 2001 box set). Wicked Lester soon fell apart and Stanley and Simmons placed ads for a drummer and a guitarist in various New York papers. This resulted in Peter Criss and Ace Frehley joining the group, and they named themselves Kiss. Kiss released their self-titled debut in February 1974.
Stanley's persona in Kiss was "The Starchild" utilizing one star over his right eye. For a brief time, Stanley changed his make-up character to "The Bandit", with a "Lone Ranger" style mask design make-up pattern. This make-up design would only be used during a few mid-1973 shows, soon to be replaced by the now famous "The Starchild" make-up design and persona. In his book Sex Money Kiss, Gene Simmons admits that Stanley was the driving force for Kiss during the makeup-free 1980s, while Simmons was feeling lost without his demon makeup and was distanced from the band while attempting to launch a film career."
It seems that Stanley has a real vendetta against Peter Criss and Ace Frehley. He really has nothing good to say about either one of them- as people or musicians. For my money, Paul doesn't seem like an easy day at the beach himself.
I was reading this while reading GINNY GALL, which was a pretty difficult read. This was my 'Day's Off' reading, but I thought the book was way too long. Never boring, yet I felt that it could have been much shorter. Maybe I'm just not that enamored with the band, Kiss . For example, Keith Richard's autobiography was probably longer, but I felt it was very justified because 'The Stones are The Stones', whereas, 'Kiss are just Kiss'. While I was reading Stanley's book I downloaded Kiss's Greatest on Hoopla, and although I liked the music more than I thought I would, it was still very, very rudimentary and simple. I've always felt that Kiss's music should be able to be played (and mastered) by any student of Rock with just a few month's worth of lessons (guitar, bass, drums, and maybe keyboard/ organ).
Stanley complains that they were never taken seriously by critics. He seems to feel that when someone like Bruce Springsteen would do something outrageous it would be called iconic, yet when Kiss would try something bold or original, critics would write it off as a gimmick. This is ridiculous. It's like saying Louie- Louie and a Brandenburg Concerto are both music so they are both the same. And, to compare the lyrics of a Kiss song to a song written by Springsteen is truly night and day. Kiss are not even in the same league! I think that this is much more than personal taste, but some things are just corny and clownish, and some Rock can really change your life and move your soul. And, for me, Kiss never did it. Not then, and not now.
No comments:
Post a Comment