Santana's Comments about Kiss

Warwickthumb · #1 10-18-2005, 09:59 AM

I read the article on the front page of talk bass about what Carlos said about KIss. I myself am not a Kiss fan. But I can at least stomach thier music to some extent. I was wondering why Carlos is saying this now. Both groups have had thier success many years ago. So why would is comments be relavent now? I'm happy to see both artists continue to do thier thing. Its no mystery bands use the costumes etc to draw apeal. But Ill admit Kiss's music was pretty good. What do you guys think?

NJL · #2 10-18-2005, 10:14 AM

I have always heard Kiss plays to tracks. I don't have respect for people running "mama's" out back.

Now, I could of been wrong all these years (since the early 80's), I will eat my shoe if someone provides me with the truth...

As to Carlos - I do have respect for him, but it just seems that all of his tunes are in A- or D-....c'mon, who the hell CAN'T solo in those keys.

The Clap · #3 10-18-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJL

it just seems that all of his tunes are in A- or D-....c'mon, who the hell CAN'T solo in those keys.

The members of kiss?

SuperDuck · #4 10-18-2005, 11:10 AM

In a perverse kind of way, I was slightly disappointed at Simmons' calm and accepting response.

NJL · #5 10-18-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clap

The members of kiss?

Bwahhahahahah!

zongeek · #6 10-18-2005, 11:22 AM

There is a very real chance I am goign to get nailed up here, but in any case:

The music of KISS my not have ever have been played by KISS or the members (as we know them) there of. My thoughts on this is that if they ever had a ghost band for recording then they didn't start using them until later. I think teh first few albums truly were Gene, Peter, Paul and Ace.

That said, they may not have recorded it, but they can play it. They've done it live, unplugged, etc. I mean, Gene Simmons VH1 TV show was pretty cool to a certain extent, and he obviously played what little he did play and sing what little he did sing.

Also wether or not you like the music isn't a big thing. Who growing up as a kid in the 70's wasn't enamored with the look or appearance of KISS? So who knows. They are definately entertainers, maybe not musicians, but definately entertainers.

jive1 · #7 10-18-2005, 11:25 AM

Hey no-one would call KISS killer musicians. Not even KISS themselves. What they kick a$$ at is entertainment. KISS puts on the best show, IMO and I feel that I definitely get my entertainment dollars worth. It's an event that stimulates many senses.

No, KISS isn't music to analyze the creative use of musical theory, or close your eyes and space out material. It's crotch rock at it's best, and that's it. To compare it to Coltrane is plain old ludicrous. KISS isn't taking away from Coltrane listeners, and neither is Coltrane. Two different audiences, two different types of music, different musicians - apple and oranges.

Personally, I've been seeing Carlos criticizing plenty of musicians for "selling out" and other reasons lately. Is his stint in the top 40 and endorsement of Pepsi starting to get to his guilty conscience? Maybe he has a new PR guy.

NJL · #8 10-18-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

Is his stint in the top 40 and endorsement of Pepsi starting to get to his guilty conscience? Maybe he has a new PR guy.

Maybe he's pissed because tried playing in F# major and couldn't do it.

Dan1099 · #9 10-18-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

Maybe he has a new PR guy.

Whoever it is seems to have no problem setting him up to play with the current "artist du jour."

buzzbass · #10 10-18-2005, 11:34 AM

When Santana talks about selling out, I'd love to see someone smack him upside the head and say, "Hey schmuck, how do explain Smooth then". He's one of the biggest examples I can think of when you talk about "going commercial". Besides, when you consider all of the ground breaking work done by some rock musicians, his body of work remains pretty insignificant. Besides, all his g*ddamn solos sound the same.

Against Will · #11 10-18-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzbass

Besides, all his g*ddamn solos sound the same.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this. No doubt, Santana creates some very sweet and compelling solos and his tone is pristine, but if you hear one, you've heard them all.

Warwickthumb · #12 10-18-2005, 01:26 PM

I actully liked the two cds Carlos put out with the diffrent artist. The only thing that brought a foul taste to my mouth was with that song that the singer from Nickle back snag on. It just didn't work. It was intersting to hear him callaborate with the artists of the times. It brought his name back into the mainstream. I only know a little about the history of KISS. To hear they didnt play thier own insturments is a bit shocking. But being the recording industry NOTHING surprises me anymore. Not to go to much off subject, Green Day i think is another example. Way back in the last century, Green Day was huge. And they had a rawer sound. Now they are uhm..... soft. Well I dont know how they are in concert. I'm sure they rock out. Regardless. Lets not all forget its all about the money. Sad but true.

B-NoteCowboy · #13 10-18-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJL

I have always heard Kiss plays to tracks. I don't have respect for people running "mama's" out back.

Now, I could of been wrong all these years (since the early 80's), I will eat my shoe if someone provides me with the truth...

As to Carlos - I do have respect for him, but it just seems that all of his tunes are in A- or D-....c'mon, who the hell CAN'T solo in those keys.

Yeah, and also Gene had a cow's tongue attached to his own so it would be longer! Yeah... that's the ticket!

People.... I have a KISS tribute band. I've done more than a little urban mythology type research on this, and whether you hate them or not is irrelevant - but the idea that they had backing tracks or didn't play their own stuff live is abject stupidity.

It's very easy to find "live" remastered video of them from cobo hall in 76 and Houston in 77. There are enough sour notes and stuff that it is utterly obvious there is no help from an invisible band under the stage or any other such crap.

It's a myth.

Now... there were studio editing libertties taken with Alive and Alive II, and there were plenty of studio tracks that were credited to Ace and Peter that they did not play on. None of this is a mystery and it's all outlined in multiple bios available at a bookstore near you!

Lastly, and again, I don't care if anyone doesn't like them as music is subjective... but the idea that they weren't talented is also absurd. Gene takes some heat on this board, and for the life of me I'll never understand why. The guy was one of rock's underrated bassists and I doubt it's possible to appreciate the level of difficulty of playing with that level of showmanship while playing some nice against the melody basslines, wearing 30# of gear on 7" platforms, not looking at your fretboard etc. etc.

Having done it myself, I certainly had to reevaluate the "ease" of their music. It's no easier than most rock even without the distractions of "being" Gene on stage.

Oh and Carlos can suck it.

B-NoteCowboy · #14 10-18-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zongeek

There is a very real chance I am goign to get nailed up here, but in any case:

The music of KISS my not have ever have been played by KISS or the members (as we know them) there of. My thoughts on this is that if they ever had a ghost band for recording then they didn't start using them until later. I think teh first few albums truly were Gene, Peter, Paul and Ace.

That said, they may not have recorded it, but they can play it. They've done it live, unplugged, etc. I mean, Gene Simmons VH1 TV show was pretty cool to a certain extent, and he obviously played what little he did play and sing what little he did sing.

Also wether or not you like the music isn't a big thing. Who growing up as a kid in the 70's wasn't enamored with the look or appearance of KISS? So who knows. They are definately entertainers, maybe not musicians, but definately entertainers.

They are musicians. And it's galling to see other people who are musicians who don't see that and are willing to believe some of these conspiracy theories.

There is no mystery about having to use studio musicians like Kulick or Antoine fig because Ace or Peter were too stoned, unreliable or whatever to get in and record on the crazy tour/record/release/tour/record/release schedule they had from 74 through 78.

Ace recorded the basslines for a few tracks on Love Gun. But by and large.... it was all of them doing their own stuff especially live. Live is where they made their legends. Live is where they lived. There was no backing band, and all you need to do is hear some bootlegs to know that if they had a backing band, they should have gotten one that didn't play like they were jumping around all over the stage. Plenty of fretbuzz and bad notes, are proof to me that no backing band was ever used live.

Here's something I fail to understand... why are so many posters here so willing to pile on to KISS or bash Gene? Unless you just love being unappreciated and annonymous as a bassist, you have to love the way he brought being a bassplayer to the FRONT of the stage and demanded the limelight. That is rock and roll. And KISS really did a great job of getting mainstream America focused away from hippie leftovers and disco and back onto straight ahead power chord rock songs about getting laid.

These are facts. Everything else is subjective personal taste.

NJL · #15 10-18-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-NoteCowboy

These are facts. Everything else is subjective personal taste.

Kelly Coyle · #16 10-18-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Against Will

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this. No doubt, Santana create very sweet and compelling solos and his tone is pristine, but if you hear one, you've heard them all.

Well, not all of them:

But I do think that in the classic Santana recordings, e.g., "Evil Ways," his organist always just kicked his ass.

B-NoteCowboy · #17 10-18-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJL

I hear shoes taste best with a little chiante and white cheese.

<- Gene

NJL · #18 10-18-2005, 03:09 PM

Now THAT'S funny!

NJL · #19 10-18-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Coyle

But I do think that in the classic Santana recordings, e.g., "Evil Ways," his organist always just kicked his ass.

I can't remember who that was then, but now he has Chester (ToP) and Dennis Chambers.... can't argue those sidemen.

page · #20 10-18-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Against Will

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this. No doubt, Santana create very sweet and compelling solos and his tone is pristine, but if you hear one, you've heard them all.

Yeah I love early Santana but his solos are very similliar, which is why my favorite part of early Santana is Neal Schon, now theres a kick ass guitarist.