• 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.

Opinion on Gene Simmons

Opinion on Gene Simmons

  • He's Awesome

    Votes: 41 8.4%
  • He's Ok

    Votes: 182 37.1%
  • He's Absolutely Horrible

    Votes: 191 38.9%
  • No Opinion

    Votes: 77 15.7%

  • Total voters
    491
  • Poll closed .
Please explain.

When I was 14, I bought "Kiss Alive" brand new and wanted, with all my heart, to BE Gene Simmons.

That was when I was 14

Now, when I hear his recordings, they are dull, listless and just plane mediocre. When I hear/read him interviewed, I want to smack him. He will forever be a hero to the adolescent in me, but to the grown up, he's just a jerk with flare who got lucky.
 
I like Gene, I agree that's he's a mediocre bassist. But if I started an "Opinion on Mike Dirnt," "Opinion on Jason Newsted," or "Opinion on Duff McKagan" thread I think you would see significantly less bashing. These three are also mediocre bass players. Listen to Gene's basslines on "Goin' Blind" or "Let Me Know" They definitely add something but are by no means that complicated; just like Jason, Dirnt and Duff. I think alot of the Gene bashing is because he's a gimmick first and a musician second. He'll tell you that himself.
 
When I was 14, I bought "Kiss Alive" brand new and wanted, with all my heart, to BE Gene Simmons.

That was when I was 14

Now, when I hear his recordings, they are dull, listless and just plane mediocre. When I hear/read him interviewed, I want to smack him. He will forever be a hero to the adolescent in me, but to the grown up, he's just a jerk with flare who got lucky.


There's no doubt luck is invloved but to say Gene didn't work at his craft is pretty ridiculous.


Listen to Gene's basslines on "Goin' Blind" or "Let Me Know"

or "Getaway"
 
I have discovered that there are two types of musician:

1. The authentic musician who pursues music because he/she loves the craft… authentic meaning anything that is not devised or structured to make a profit or anything that exists for its own sake, that assumes its own shape.

2. The marketer who sees music as the vehicle of his/her opportunity, the garden where everything is strategically planted and arranged for effect.
I'm a musician that would love to make a liveable profit on my music so i can play music all day long.
Am i a some type of hybrid then?
 
I'll admit Gene inspired me. I was a card carrying member of the Kiss Army! I used to love listening to my KISS records. I had every single one up to Unmasked. I gave them away, once my taste matured a bit (and it became embarrassing to be known as a KISS fan). Sometimes, I still listen to a few MP3's I have.

Gene isn't going down in history as one of the greatest, technically proficient bassists of all time. He wrote lines that fit the songs. I voted He's Ok.
 
I think it's important to clarify the poll... Is the poll referring to proficiency and virtuosity? If so, I think he's horrible. But so are over 99 percent of all successful established rock acts.

If the poll refers to his role in Kiss and writing / playing excellent walking lines that contributed a great deal to the music (whether you like it or not is irrelevant, please remember), then he's excellent, IMO.

these poll results are nothing more than a popularity contest, as evidenced by many of the immature and ignorant comments on here.
 
Bassrazor
I have discovered that there are two types of musician:

1. The authentic musician who pursues music because he/she loves the craft… authentic meaning anything that is not devised or structured to make a profit or anything that exists for its own sake, that assumes its own shape.

2. The marketer who sees music as the vehicle of his/her opportunity, the garden where everything is strategically planted and arranged for effect.

No, no, no, you're seeing it within such limited constraints. Music and people are two things that, as a whole, have an incredible amount of diversity. So pigeonholing both simultaneously into two categories is an incredibly narrow way to perceive things.

For example, Victor Wooten is an incredible bassist, yet he's a session musician (read: plays music for other people to make music AND money), a teacher and puts out CDs/DVDs to make money from his talent. Which category would you put him into?

Mike Patton is one artist who is renowned for going against the grain and doing what is totally unconventional. When he joined Faith No More he did it only if Mr. Bungle would get signed to Warner Brothers. He runs his own record label (Ipecac Records). Where would you put him, seeing as most of what he does is so uncommercial it barely gets on radio, let alone any kind of significant media attention?

There are many differing shades of grey with the spectrum. I've met and know fantastic musicians who pursue it and can barely pay the rent with it, and others who have been quite successful because they honed their craft and developed business nouse for years and years because all they want to do is music and nothing else, and that includes giving up their day job. Why separate the two, if you can do both?

You mentioned the term authentic. What if you write such a brilliant piece of music that afterwards you want to get it out to as many people as possible, and (*gasp*) make a bit of money from such a thing?

What if you're consistently making music and start to develop a bit of a reputation, so that you get a few gigs? And people who go to these gigs love it and you think "hmmm, I'd love to make a CD, it's something I've always wanted to do". So you make a demo recording and people love it. You keep doing more of the same and your reputation widens and you're playing to more people and someone picks it up and asks to put it on local radio, which in turn gains more popularity. This gets the attention of people who run bigger gigs and festivals and soon they're asking you to play, then bigger radio asks to put your songs on their rotation, then record companies start asking if they can put you into a fantastic studio and you see this as an opportunity to really get those sounds out in such a way that you've never quite been able to, and then the CDs get out there and people are amazed and want to buy them, so then you're asked to tour and you see that as a great experience you can draw inspiration from for more music by seeing places and people you never would have otherwise, and you meet other musicians along the way who share a similar story and you learn some more about music from these people, and afterwards you get back home and think "Wow, this is amazing, but I want to write something a bit different now because through this I've explored one area and got all those sounds and ideas out, but I've got some new sounds and ideas to work on" and then you sit down in your own little studio and start working on some new stuff, and one day your band mates or such listen and go "hey that's cool man" and it gets more attention and pretty soon you're back in the studio, your song is on the radio and is bigger than before and you are making a lot of money. Where is the integrity lost in all of this? The one constant here is that you're doing what you've always done: had some sounds and ideas in your head and put them out there, because that's what you wanted to do (ie. made music). There doesn't need to be any artistic sacrifice made, if what you did to begin with was being true to your musical self. You just continue being true to your musical self and the music should always remain good.
 
twdavis13 said:
I Don't Want ANY Bashing Just Vote and if you don;t have anything positive to say, don't say anything.

OoooooooKay.....Uh................

His makeup is/was waaaaaay cooler than Dee Snider's

Supposedly, he has a Killer polaroid photo collection

He will never be able to run for President of the United States
 
Sorry, but I disagree. Many artists are in it for the music, and it doesn't mean they're trying to appeal to the "artistes" for saying so, it's probably actually true you know. Many artists are also very business minded and can combine the two. All I'm repeating is what I saw in a candid interview with a highly respected Australian musician.

Your cynicism is all well and good, but usually cynics try to prove justification for their cynicism, instead of understanding there are varying shades within the spectrum. You don't think artistic integrity exists in the music industry? What about the bands who get signed to contracts that makes less money but means they keep artistic control over everything, like Tool or Nirvana, to think of a couple examples off the top of my head. Sure, they make money because they become big, but they didn't/don't sacrifice their art for it. The money is a by-product of their art. Miles Davis drove a yellow Ferrari, clearly from his earnings as part of the music industry. Would you say he didn't have artistic integrity?
The only acts who get to exercise artistic integrity are those who sell lots of albums. If Nirvana hadn't sold lots of copies of "Bleach" on their own before Geffen stepped in, they never would have had the clout to demand any artistic control whatsoever. You buy artistic control in the music business. You don't get it any other way. And the same goes for Miles Davis.
 
The only acts who get to exercise artistic integrity are those who sell lots of albums. If Nirvana hadn't sold lots of copies of "Bleach" on their own before Geffen stepped in, they never would have had the clout to demand any artistic control whatsoever. You buy artistic control in the music business. You don't get it any other way. And the same goes for Miles Davis.

That's not gospel. But I'm talking about the Australian music industry where you can sign to a company and keep all your copyright. I think it's a little different in the US. Having said that I'm fairly certain not every contract means an artist has to "sell out", there are plenty who keep artistic control through not selling their rights to the record company, ie. there are no absolutes, as in the case of Mike Patton whom signed to a major record label with a band like Mr. Bungle, or Tool who have done the same yet still release 7 1/2 minute singles with no radio edits, because they have had artistic control right from the genesis of the band.
 

Latest posts