/thread. LMAO!!!That's almost like saying that to communicate in English, you need to be able capitalise and punctuate correctly.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Gene Simmons is Good
- Thread starter tapehead
- Start date
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!?
220 + POSTS ??!?
Let's settle this and then never come back here...
Gene Simmons is Good
BUT
He's no Sid Vicious!!
[/thread]
220 + POSTS ??!?
Let's settle this and then never come back here...
Gene Simmons is Good
BUT
He's no Sid Vicious!!
[/thread]
That's almost like saying that to communicate in English, you need to be able capitalise and punctuate correctly.
And be able to spell correctly too! it's spelled "CAPITALIZE" you idiot!
people want to give him a bad rap because he is an egotistical dick! It is always more about the music business and himself than the quality of the music. KISS had some catchy songs in the 70s, but have not done anything remotely catchy since. I think it is sad that at his age he has to depend on makeup, stage theatrics, and merchandise from the 70s to still have a career. Please just go away already!!!!!
Maybe you should think before you call someone an idiot. He's from the UK. They spell some words differently than we do in the US.
Alvaro Martín Gómez A.
TalkBass' resident Bongo + cowbell player
I respectfully disagree. I stopped being a Kiss freak when they took off their makeup and became a hair/glam band, but "Revenge" has really good songs like "Unholy" (one of their heaviest IMO) and "Domino".
Well, this is my first post, and I'll probably ruffle a few feathers...lol. I have to say that, good or bad Gene played what was needed for the song. He's a performer, not a musician in the classical sense of the word. I'd also have to say that I would gladly give up half of my talent for just a tenth of his success.
Why is it that whenever a player truly SUCKS, that the most redeeming thing usually stated in his defense is that he's still "a good rock player"? As if, deep down, we all recognize that rock music is such a primitive form, that any half-wit orangutan capable of counting to four could somehow manage to bang it out?
Isn't having (and expressing) creative talent a form of success in its own right? What a sad sentiment. Your talent must not be all that important to you, if you would so eagerly prostitute it away for the sake of filthy lucre...
MM
None of the Beatles could read either. So what are you saying?
I knew this would start some controversy, but it was merely an attack at a poster who said " Kiss fans aren't into musicianship" like he some master musician because he doesn't like Kiss, and alot of us do. I'm willing to bet he can't read a note of music!
I'm not writing off any bands, I'm just pointing out a fact. When recording artists, mostly rock bands (or most any band for that matter) say they "write songs" the word "write" is merely a metaphor.
Other than writing lyrics down on paper, is any of the music by most bands written in notation, chord charts, or even tablature? have any of the bands you played in written your songs down on paper? None of the rock bands I played in have! mainly because most of the "musicians" I played with can't read note either.
Most songs by bands start with a riff or a lyric, (that someone jammed on) then builds from there. sound like a familiar formula?
Sure there are more complex bands like Yes, Rush, King Crimson and others that orchestrate many different and interesting parts in their songs. But are there bands 'WRITING "songs like that today?
Does it mean we all suck if we can't read music? No! some of the best players can't, but the better ones can! do you wonder why?
As much as I admire Billy Sheehan, Have you ever seen his instructional videos on You-Tube? sure he can amaze you on how he plays,(he amazes the hell out of me!) but have you noticed what he lacks when he tries to explain the musical theory behind his playing? I have seen a clip where he freely admits this though.
Have you ever watched any You-Tube videos by musically accomplished bassists like John Pattatucci,Jaco,Chuck Rainey and others? can you see how they can easily explain with confidence in great detail the music theory behind what they do and why they do it?
None the less, I still stand behind what I say about be able to read music's written language. playing an instrument is only one part of music. I'm sure the great jazz bassists, studio bassists, and the other fine bass players playing on the bandstand would agree.
Sorry if many of you take offense to it, I'm telling like it is, but your negative replies are nothing more than semantics in lieu of your unwillingness to learn to read "music's written language"
By the way, we are off topic. were supposed to be talking about Gene Simmons bass playing...
Isn't having (and expressing) creative talent a form of success in its own right? What a sad sentiment. Your talent must not be all that important to you, if you would so eagerly prostitute it away for the sake of filthy lucre...
MM
Ahhh, ok, you're one of those guys. The problem is that I could be the MOST talented bassist in the world, but it would be empty if I couldn't share it. I love music and entertaining even more than I love my own talent...not quite the narcissist you seem to be.
Talent is only a part of this whole thing, bud. I can only figure that you're a pretty young guy if you haven't figured that out yet. I'll tell ya what...let me know which alley you will be curled up in and I'll be sure to drop a dollar in the can so as to help support your "talent".
Interesting point of view! at last, an intelligent response. I could agree with that, but that doesn't necessarily apply to all. Good reply!
Well, having talent and having the platform by which to share that talent are two separate things. Now that you've redefined the issue in this way, I would find little cause to disagree with you.
By the way, I'm actually 10 years older than you. And I have an entirely separate career by which I earn the great majority of my income. Whether or not I'm a narcissist is quite irrelevant to the point I was making...
Hmm... Maybe I'm not so much one of "those guys" as you thought...
MM
It is a good question! But of course Gene Simmons can't do any of the above, so I guess we all know what that means...
MM
Well, having talent and having the platform by which to share that talent are two separate things. Now that you've redefined the issue in this way, I would find little cause to disagree with you.
By the way, I'm actually 10 years older than you. And I have an entirely separate career by which I earn the great majority of my income. Whether or not I'm a narcissist is quite irrelevant to the point I was making...
Hmm... Maybe I'm not so much one of "those guys" as you thought...
MM
Well then, we both seem to have made assumptions...not really a good way to start a relationship
Look, I've seen my share of bands built up with incredibly talented individual musicians, and I respect them for that. But those groups tend to be fairly bland on stage and their songwriting can leave a lot to be desired. On the other hand, I've known bands whose sum is greater than their individual parts and when they come together their real talent shines through. I would personally rather be associated with the latter group of musicians, but that's my own thing.
Well then, we both seem to have made assumptions...not really a good way to start a relationship
Fair enough. No harm done...
I see your point. I would suggest only that since playing well in an ensemble environment is an essential skill for any musician (and composition is at least a highly-desirable skill), that perhaps those in the first category are not as talented (certainly not as well rounded) as one might otherwise think; while those in the second category are perhaps under-rated. Ya think?
MM
