Gene Simmons insults Radiohead

I prefer a concert of Kiss

Radiohead is an ok band with an ok live show. IMO

what is quality... but for making music that people enjoy ...
[/QUOTE]

Without worrying how many or how few do.
Well said, and surely "nuff said".

Oh, by the way, if you've seen early videos of Kiss shows, you may have noticed that they didn't quite have the "stage show" they had after Kiss Alive. They did move on stage, and the make-up stood them out from other rockers of the era. But there were many fifth rate acts that tried to make on gimmick alone, only to fail.
And there are musicians that can simply stand up & play.
In both cases, we now see (plainly) that being a fan plays a role in enjoying the concert. Just as being a fan doesn't always translate into accepting a "boring" show, whatever that may mean to the fan.
If Return to Forever played a traditional country music set straight, would most of their fans find it as interesting as their usual jazz fusion ? Same with Kiss, if they turned around and did symphonic prog rendition of Rock n Roll Over ...

Oh, by the way PT II - I love big explosions, and extravagant video; but I could never quite get through a Triumph concert., despite agreeing that what's his face is a great guitar player.
I also saw Mojo Nixon & Skid Roper at a packed club in Toronto, and a month later Tim Finn at the same club. Both acts had the crowd go home with big smiles. Neither put on a show compared to the other.
Hmm, could it be that the pleasure was subjective.

I don't get why this is even on here.  the vast majority of people on this site wwould say neither of these bands are prog rock bands. Reg rock maybe.

Blacksword wrote: micky wrote: tardis wrote: Yeah baby, let's blow sh*t up!! Who gives a stuff about music quality?  and you imply KISS is NOT about musical quality...' I hope the four guys who make up the group, whose names don't matter, are putting money away for the future.  The NEAR future, because KISS won't be around long'Seattle Daily TimesMay 27, 1974what is quality... but for making music that people enjoy brother.... What you're describing is popularity and longevity, neither are synonomous with quality. I listened to Kiss as a kid, but it didn't take me long to realise that the music was very much secondary in importance in the Kiss formula. Kiss is/was about entertainment; fire bombs, make up, rocket launching codpieces, and fair play to them. They have an audience and have made an enormous amount of money. I'm not really a fan of Radiohead. I have to be in the right mood, and even then I can only tolerate small doses, but Gene Simmons comments are meaningless in any case. Kiss and Radiohead are worlds apart, and cant be compared in any respect.

hahhah.. well it sure seems they are being compared aren't they..  personally I love both groups and for different reasons.  I don't compare.. just enjoy... but that seems to be something that is lost upon some here.

so we get to the point which drew me out of my PA's stupor and into this thread...

the notion that KISS is not... quality..

just how do you define 'quality'

personally.. no one here has.. or probably could any better than this right here...

micky wrote: what is quality... but for making music that people enjoy ...

some wag earlier brought up Mariah Carey...  and again... we have the notion that people can not accept that good quality music can NOT simply be music they don't enjoy... or worse yet... if it ain't prog... it sucks. It's a damn good thing that the music.. and musicians here we love and respect were a DAMN sight more open minded than many of the fans of their music.  Not directed at you specifically Andy... just in general.... for discussions sake.  But I speak the truth.. as it applies to a great many fans of the music.. here on this site.






Edited by micky - June 18 2008 at 06:36

Is this thread really on its sixth page?

The T wrote: jammun wrote: The T wrote: jammun wrote: I guess I've attended too many fusion and jazz concerts, where the musicians are more concerned with the quality of the music than with the quality of the spectacle.  Believe me, the original electric incarnation of Return to Forever (w/ Bill Connors on guitar), playing in the most humble of venues and attending to nothing but the music, was a far more satisfying concert than anything KISS could have put together.  For that matter, Lightnin' Hopkins, sitting on a chair and just playing acoustic country blues, beats KISS and their ilk so badly that if Gene Simmons had any respect for the sources of his music, he would crawl under a rock and shut the f**k up.    For every Original-Electric-Bill-Connors'-Return-To-Forever fan that tells Simmons to shut the f**k up, there would be like a million KISS fans who would seriously and deafeningly overpower that shut-the-f**k-up with a much louder shut the f**k up. So I'm pretty sure he's not looking for any rocks under which to crawl.... besides, the man is big and has a long tongue....   Don't get me wrong... I enjoyed the 300-audience, absolutely-poor The Flower Kings' concert I attended in 2006 much more than I probably would a 50000-audience, filthy-rich KISS show.... But I don't think I've earned the right to say we 300 are right whereas those 50000 are just incredibly, stupidly wrong..... And then again, who HAS EARNED that right???   By that logic I assume that if Mariah Carey ( who I believe is now the greatest selling recording artist of all time) had made the statement, you would be subscribing to it?   No... But the fact that I love a complex form of music doesn't prove me right over millions of people who enjoy simpler music.... and Simmons didn't even insult Yorke... he just said, as a fan, that Radiohead's concerts are boring... and many people here have seen his point... So why would he have to "shut the f**k up" just because you prefer Return to Forever? Go and enjoy what you like...

The T wrote: jammun wrote: I guess I've attended too many fusion and jazz concerts, where the musicians are more concerned with the quality of the music than with the quality of the spectacle.  Believe me, the original electric incarnation of Return to Forever (w/ Bill Connors on guitar), playing in the most humble of venues and attending to nothing but the music, was a far more satisfying concert than anything KISS could have put together.  For that matter, Lightnin' Hopkins, sitting on a chair and just playing acoustic country blues, beats KISS and their ilk so badly that if Gene Simmons had any respect for the sources of his music, he would crawl under a rock and shut the f**k up.    For every Original-Electric-Bill-Connors'-Return-To-Forever fan that tells Simmons to shut the f**k up, there would be like a million KISS fans who would seriously and deafeningly overpower that shut-the-f**k-up with a much louder shut the f**k up. So I'm pretty sure he's not looking for any rocks under which to crawl.... besides, the man is big and has a long tongue....   Don't get me wrong... I enjoyed the 300-audience, absolutely-poor The Flower Kings' concert I attended in 2006 much more than I probably would a 50000-audience, filthy-rich KISS show.... But I don't think I've earned the right to say we 300 are right whereas those 50000 are just incredibly, stupidly wrong..... And then again, who HAS EARNED that right???

TGM: Orb wrote: What's the insult, really? He thinks that visuals are an important element in a live show. I, to an extent, agree. He also thinks that Radiohead's live shows are lacking the visual part. Big deal. He admits he admires their music/other competence, but thinks they should take themselves a little less seriously in shows. Frankly, his comment is fine by me, and basically uninsulting. He's not 'slamming' Radiohead at all, he's criticising their live visual performance, and he's not doing it specifically to Radiohead, just generally for bands he feels lack the needed live visual elements.

Haha, that might explain a lot.

I wouldn't go that far, since I really am not a fan of Kiss...but Thom does look extremely unpleasant in that picture.