Gene Simmons insults Radiohead

Do people have such a short attention span that they need lasers and giant video screens and firebreathing and dancers and what was I saying?

I'm pleased he didn't go for the throats of a prog band I like,  had he done that I would have cut his tongue off and shoved it down his leather pants.  

I think a balance should be found between putting up a show like KISS's, which seems to privilege the visual aspect over the musical one, and Radiohead's just standing on the stage and doing their thing as if they didn't care a lot about their audience. Bands like Rush, to make just an example, manage to be entertaining in a visual sense while making absolutely great music, so that a gig of theirs is a complete experience. As much as I dislike Gene Simmons, I think he did have a point - though he probably chose too easy a target for his criticism.

Harry Hood wrote: laplace wrote: I sort of appreciate it when a band does nothing for a crowd on purpose. KC are the ultimate example with Fripp confiscating camcorders and stuff. I think KC's next live album should be called "STFU if You Don't Like It" KC does nothing for the crowd? Fripp may be the the biggest audience hater in rock, but that's part of the reason he recruited Adrian Belew. While the other members hide in the back, play their parts, and avert their eyes, Belew is up there keeping the energy going and making sure the audience is having a good time.

I think his talent probably was probably more on Fripp's mind than how well Belew could shake his ass on stage hahahha.

Harry Hood wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I've always wondered why people put the "stage presence" and visual qualities of a music concert above the actual music. Maybe that's why I don't often see bands live ... seeing how all the other people in the audience don't care about the music makes me feel like some kind of freak. It's not the most important part, but it's an important part regardless. The fans want to feel like their support is appreciated, and it's difficult to feel that way when the whole band is facing away from the audience, and don't look like they're having any fun at all.

About 3 years ago I saw the Flower Kings ... during the performance Roine said something which I can't remember word for word, but he was asking the audience whether they're having fun and - after receiving a positive response of course - explained that they were having fun too, although it might not always look that way. Their show was a lot like what you can see on the "Meet the Flower Kings" DVD (it was the same tour, actually) ... they were quite "static" on the stage. The point is that as soon as you move around much on stage and try to look "hyperactive", the musical performance will suffer. Of course you can try to switch between running around on stage during easy parts and "static mode" during difficult parts, but progressive music has a tendency to be difficult throughout a piece. So - the more musically demanding the music is, the less "stage acting" should be expected.

BTW: A few months ago I saw Symphony X at the same venue. They were as static as The Flower Kings - with the exception of Russell Allen. Now of course it's a definitive advantage when a band has a full time singer ... he has plenty of time to interact with the crowd, and when he has nothing to do (intros, solos etc) he can mosh and dance and effectively become a member of the audience.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I've always wondered why people put the "stage presence" and visual qualities of a music concert above the actual music. Maybe that's why I don't often see bands live ... seeing how all the other people in the audience don't care about the music makes me feel like some kind of freak.

It's not the most important part, but it's an important part regardless. The fans want to feel like their support is appreciated, and it's difficult to feel that way when the whole band is facing away from the audience, and don't look like they're having any fun at all.


Edited by Harry Hood - June 14 2008 at 03:25

^ I've always wondered why people put the "stage presence" and visual qualities of a music concert above the actual music. Maybe that's why I don't often see bands live ... seeing how all the other people in the audience don't care about the music makes me feel like some kind of freak.

I always see Kiss when they come to Australia ... one reason the show !   fans like to get it on it too 4,000 Gene Simmons walking around when you go in the concert arena scary  ...   great fun Kiss concerts are a blast. They have awesome stage props and they spend a ton of money you can tell and they seem to put on a different show every time.  With Kiss its more than about the music its about the escapism and a window in time back to youth while it lasts.  Kiss are great on stage but lately the things Gene is saying I find a bit egotistical I think he should refrain from saying this stuff  ...  we know its true.  


Edited by Yorkie X - June 14 2008 at 02:35

^ Well I won't argue that.  Found myself jamming with the boys to 'I wanna rock & roll all night...' one evening and yeah, enjoyed it.  But Kiss and Radiohead is apples and oranges, and I'm not a huge Radiohead fan.

Let's look at the facts, which are #1, that he is a has been, and therefore #2, he needs to stir up some interest in his 'name recognition'.  So why not trash a reasonably popular contemporary band.  It will get the odd headline or two.