• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gene Simmons and the horns

OK, ya gotta pay attention here folks.

Most of the pretenders throw the horns with their thumb laid over the two middle fingers. Most of the GS pics show him throwing the patented horns with the unique Simmons "thumb extension" feature that makes it totally unique to Simmons, or does it. World famous surfer Jeff Spicoli was very fond of throwing the horns with thumb extended which lends credence to the contention that particular variarion of throwing the horns was in fact born in the early SoCal surfer culture, or may reach even further back to a time when surfing was an exclusive pastime of Hawaiian royalty. Odds approach certainty Mr. Spicoli never attended a KISS concert, which only strengthens the surfer claim to the origin of the thumb extended variation of the classic devil's horns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sixgunn
When did they ever confess they are a parody of a metal band? They aren't even metal at all. Obviously, he has the talent to enter the rock world, as he's been playing the biggest stages in the world since the 70s. You don't sell millions of albums based only on your stage show.

As for the last part about people who "loyally and generously" giving the band money over the years seeing things different, that's a big passive aggressive, eh? We are blinded by fanboyism and money spent? Gimme a break. They're not even in my top favorite bands. I just enjoy the bands material up until '78, and when people say he can't play/is talentless, it's just ridiculous and shows a person's ignorance along with probably a good helping of jealousy.

I hate Jaco's music and see nothing genius about it, I don't go dumping on him. But when it's a Gene thread, it's fine for everybody to pile on.

Wow! A full blown ad hominem attack directed at somebody because they're not impressed by somebody you're claiming you're also not impressed by? That takes some serious mental acrobatics, don't you think?

Ok…just to clear the air…

Sorry if my opinion upset you. But we are all entitled to have our own. If you choose to throw a pile of personal insults my way by suggesting my comments are motivated by things like "jealousy," "passive aggression" (you might want to look that up btw - it doesn't mean what you appear to think it does) and that I'm basically an "ignorant" person just because you happen to disagree with me, I'll try to live with that.

However, I don't happen to care for Kiss music or Gene Simmons for the reasons I've given. And I don't consider him "a genius" in any sense that I can think of. If that still somehow bothers you, I'm sorry you feel that way about it. Perhaps there will be something we can both agree on at some other time.

Cheers! :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sixgunn
You don't know what he can or can't do. He did what was apropos
and there's genius behind that whether you agree or not. 99.9999% of music is for entertainment value and saying they were mediocre is totally myopic. They were the best there was in THEIR market. Geddy Lee is mediocre compared to Victor Wooten. Sid Vicious is mediocre compared to Gene Simmons. Hendrix was mediocre compared to Steve Vai. Want more examples? There are quite a few "icons" that if they came out today wouldn't even pack a local bar. That's an invalid argument.
I don't buy this argument. Yes - there are some icons that wouldn't pack a local bar now and there are some that are still completely relevant and absolutely would attract the same attention and reverence. Rush and Queen as examples are two bands that in their prime would still be totally up to par today.

In ANY era KISS were not a great band - and neither were the Sex Pistols. In the latter's case that was kind of the whole point though. In the case of KISS is was an entire brand marketing that had never been seen before. The talent was almost secondary to the image.

I'm not here to just dump on Gene. What he and KISS did was brilliant as far as the whole package went. I think legions of kids in the 70's knew about the band without even hearing a lick of their music. I guess that alone is genius.
 
Last edited:
Wow! A full blown ad hominem attack directed at somebody because they're not impressed by somebody you're claiming you're also not impressed by? That takes some serious mental acrobatics, don't you think?

Ok…just to clear the air…

Sorry if my opinion upset you. But we are all entitled to have our own. If you choose to throw a pile of personal insults my way by suggesting my comments are motivated by things like "jealousy," "passive aggression" (you might want to look that up btw - it doesn't mean what you appear to think it does) and that I'm basically an "ignorant" person just because you happen to disagree with me, I'll try to live with that.

However, I don't happen to care for Kiss music or Gene Simmons for the reasons I've given. And I don't consider him "a genius" in any sense that I can think of. If that still somehow bothers you, I'm sorry you feel that way about it. Perhaps there will be something we can both agree on at some other time.

Cheers! :thumbsup:

The first three sentences of your reply literally made me laugh out loud. You're certainly one to be making remarks about mental acrobatics, buddy. When did I say I'm not impressed by Simmons? I am, I enjoy his work. I never stated he was a genius, either. That was another poster. Did I say YOU were making statements that is talentless or can't play? Nope. So those "insults" weren't towards you. But plenty of people in this thread have been saying just those things. What you did say that was dumb though is, again, the part about people lining their pockets seeing things differently. I mean, come on. Besides, weren't you insulting towards Gene?

By the way, I do know what passive aggressive means.

Hopefully you won't take this as another ad hominem attack.

As far as us agreeing in the future, who cares? We are two random strangers on the internet. It's just a bass forum.

Cheers to you as well.
 
I don't buy this argument. Yes - there are some icons that wouldn't pack a local bar now and there are some that are still completely relevant and absolutely would attract the same attention and reverence. Rush and Queen as examples are two bands that in their prime would still be totally up to par today.

In ANY era KISS were not a great band - and neither were the Sex Pistols. In the latter's case that was kind of the whole point though. In the case of KISS is was an entire brand marketing that had never been seen before. The talent was almost secondary to the image.

I'm not here to just dump on Gene. What he and KISS did was brilliant as far as the whole package went. I think legions of kids in the 70's knew about the band without even hearing a lick of their music. I guess that alone is genius.
That's kinda what I was saying. Queen and Rush undoubtedly but Hendrix and Bob Dylan? I doubt it.
 
That gesture is also the deaf people's sign for "I love you" in sign language. I haven't found proof that his request was denied, but I heard on the radio that it was because of the deaf sign. Besides, how do you trademark a hand gesture that's been in use by millions of people worldwide, and how do you prove you came up with it?
 
That gesture is also the deaf people's sign for "I love you" in sign language. I haven't found proof that his request was denied, but I heard on the radio that it was because of the deaf sign. Besides, how do you trademark a hand gesture that's been in use by millions of people worldwide, and how do you prove you came up with it?

Ohhhh, now I get it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyM
Aw, I came here thinking Gene Simmons put out a classic soul album... :(

Gene_Simmons_&_the Horns.jpg