Gene Simmons insults Radiohead

When the worst band ever insults the best band ever, all you have to do is just turn the other cheek and let those talentless hacks humor themselves. 

I wonder what he would have thought of a Gabriel-era Genesis show, haha.

GoldenSpiral wrote: It's just Gene being Gene.  He didn't really insult their style, so much as point out the difference between a Kiss show and a Radiohead show.  One features good music, and a good light show, and the other is a circus.  It would be like Dee Snyder saying Thom Yorke wears boring clothes.  Obvious, yes, when you're wearing spandex and mascara.

Ahh to think that the spirit of such theatrical performers/bands as Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, and Yes lives on in such an unworthy vessel.  

Kiss gives me a bitter taste in the back of my mouth. Gene Simmons himself slightly less so, but he's not exactly cheese on a plate, so to speak.

When there's a reality-show based on an artist's family life, it should be a general rule to strip that character of every inch of credibility.

You know guys, I'm with Gene on this one. I don't shell out anywhere from 25-100 bucks for a ticket to basically watch 5 guys stand around like I'm watching footage of them in the studio. It's why I'd kill for Bruce Springsteen, King's X, and Peter Gabriel tickets but didn't really get excited when Porcupine Tree came to town. PT's live DVD is one of the best live prog DVDs, but only because of the music. Visually, there is no reason for me to watch my TV screen while it's on. While Gene is certainly just doing this to be Gene, he's got a point and if you look at the more commercially successful prog/related groups (Rush, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, etc.), the majority of them put on a killer show. Now, commercial gain shouldn't be the reason for doing it, but perhaps if more artists brought an energy to their live shows prog would have been or would be bigger.

hahahah...

compared to KISS.. who wouldn't be boring live hahahhah

Different types of music call for different kinds of atmosphere. Do classical orchestras call for explosions and visuals? I think it's presumptuous and naive to say that all music shows should be expressive in the same way, and it ignores that there is a whole range of human expression that can come through music, not all of which involve "blow[ing] sh*t up".

listen wrote: Different types of music call for different kinds of atmosphere. Do classical orchestras call for explosions and visuals? I think it's presumptuous and naive to say that all music shows should be expressive in the same way, and it ignores that there is a whole range of human expression that can come through music, not all of which involve "blow[ing] sh*t up".

That's not very fair. I think there is a lot of room for options other than "explosions" and "no explosions".
I think Gene's example is one end of the spectrum. And where their music is based on fun, and lacks a great deal of technique and prowess, their draw is to be a visual experience as much as anything.

 But there is room for exercising some imagination in finding ways to immerse the fans in the live experience by tantalizing not only their ears, but also their eyes.

I'm certainly not saying some bands need to hire GWAR to choreograph their shows and design rubber puppets But I have felt a little slighted before when I paid good cash to be in the same room as a band and felt that it might as well have been a studio recording played through giant speakers with mannequins set up in front of me.

Then again, some bands do get so worked up by playing their music live that they radiate an aura of excitement that feeds the crowd and sometimes that's all that's needed.
But there is a disconnect that some bands have from their audiences where they may as well not be there.

Do classical orchestras call for explosions and visuals?

1812 Overture


Edited by *frinspar* - June 13 2008 at 17:57