Jump to content

Simons: "If you look at the statistics, you become even greater if we replace the original members"


auad

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kiss is great! If you can get past the fact that they're Kiss, you're gonna find so many awesome songs!

True. You gotta think of KISS as musical junk food. It's guaranteed fun, but it's not respectable music. I really enjoy KISS. Especially their first 7 albums. Then there's a huge gap and Sonic Boom, IMO.

But the reason Kiss or the Stones are bigger today than ever is because of what the original members accomplished, not because there's no members.
True.

True. It has NOTHING to do with replacing the original members. Here's two letters that shatter Gene's theory: U2. /thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene says Van Halen was bigger with Sammy than with Roth - which may (or may not) be technically correct, but I would assume it is only correct because when Roth started with Van Halen they had no material but with Sammy you had all the Roth albums plus all the Sammy albums selling at the same time, plus the public had more time to absorb the music.

In regards for today, Van Halen isn't successful because Micheal Anthony was replaced with Wolfgang, it is because of their past material that they are so big - which is why people wanted to hear the new album.

So I don't buy Gene's theory myself. KISS is still big not because of the lineup changes, but because the music KISS has made (mostly past material) have resonated with more and more people so there is more exposure and thus more sales as time goes by

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand his point with the Ramones. But the reason Kiss or the Stones are bigger today than ever is because of what the original members accomplished, not because there's no members. And it depends on how you define "big". Kiss might have more money today than ever but they're not as relevant today as they were.

He doesn't have a single fucking point when it comes to The Ramones. The stupid cunt is talking the worst pile of bullshit.

Edited by mr-fukaji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you quantify how good or relevant a band is?

...

So what forumula or criteria do you use?

Personally, I think the best way to judge the quality of a song, album, or band, is to consider the influence it had on other musicians (both peers, and those yet-to-come)... i.e., how it changed the course of music.

Edited by nambis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As some people said; I'm pretty sure the original gnr were more successful than the current lineup.

And I don't think what he says proves anything. It's just more like the band obviously gets more popular in time. Acdc didn't become more successful BECAUSE they replaced Bon Scott with Brian Johnson. Their popularity obviously increases in time, regardless of any changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think GNR popularity has raised a bit in the last decade. What I saw was 80's records getting more of a cult and classic status so albums like AFD became even more loved.

GNR is doing ok for and old act but it could be better, it could have more of a "cult" band by now if Axl went in to a more alternative direction instead of using naked woman to promote his shows.

Kiss is terrible, they have about 5 good songs. Gene Simmons is an asshole.

Everybody knows that, regarding money, the best thing that could happen to GNR is a reunion. The old members are still important and would save GNR from the darkness. I don't even want a reunion, just stating the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I thought I was in the GnR Discussion and News forum. Clearly this is not it, boy is my face red! Can anyone link me to the GnR Discussion and News forum? I was looking for Gun N Roses related discussion and news. Silly me I must have gotten lost on the big ole interwebs. Confounded computer!

Edited by DeadSlash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what Gene is saying. Basically that replacing people in a band can work. It certainly can.

The only difference with new GNR is, Axl has purposely chosen a bunch of guys who couldn't be anymore mismatched and simply do not fit into the band. He has done this on purpose to make sure he cannot be overshadowed.

You can replace original members but they need to be people who actually fit.

The only one who comes even remotely close in the new band is Richard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think if you can keep a bands name alive, despite or because of line up changes they will get bigger. it's like the economy it either grows or it dies, theres no maintaining a certain level.

I've never heard a Chicago song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Band lineup changes are crap shoot. Even in KISS - they had Vinnie Vincent for 5 seconds, and was part of the "unmasking". KISS in the 80s were able to have hit songs because Paul Stanley cared more about keeping it going than Gene did,and wound up working with other people.

The success from 97-now are all about the live shows, because there was a demand to see Ace and Peter in the band again, but more so for the people who missed out in the 70s.

I think Pink Floyd, Van Halen, and Genesis are cases where they were able to be bigger by changing frontmen.

But after 10-15 years, it's real hard for the same people to keep working together. Everyone uses The Beatles as a benchmark when it comes to longevity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene would've said this wasn't one of the bands that would've benefited by lineup changes, but it took lineup changes for GNR to happen in the first place.

http://www.antimusic.com/news/11/nov/ts15Gene_Simmons_Vs_Axl_Rose.shtml

Gene Simmons of KISS was asked about what advice he would offer Axl Rose about staying at the top of his game. "You get to sleep in the bed you make," said Simmons. "It's simple. If you're lucky enough to be accepted on stage by the audience, if you're lucky enough to be able to write a song, if you're lucky enough to have charisma on stage, that's the beginning. And then you've got to be able to deliver night after night after night. And not everybody is designed to run a marathon. Because to be a rock star for decades means you're running a marathon."

"Guns N' Roses could have been the best band in the world, and the reason they're not is because of Axl Rose," he added. "I mean, the drugs, the heroin, the alcohol and all that. But ultimately, it falls on Axl's shoulders."

So, Gene, what could Axl have done differently? "A good beating would have helped," Simmons replied. "I mean, when you misbehaved as a little kid and continued to do it, there was somebody there to give you a what for. Then when you become a grown-up, who's there to set you straight?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I thought I was in the GnR Discussion and News forum. Clearly this is not it, boy is my face red! Can anyone link me to the GnR Discussion and News forum? I was looking for Gun N Roses related discussion and news. Silly me I must have gotten lost on the big ole interwebs. Confounded computer!

Man, go to walk in the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did auad go full retard? Maybe he just forgot what forum he was in. I guess it's even possible that he became jealous of everyone else making pointless threads and decided to show us how it is done the right way.

What's the concensus?

hi bro. have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish didn't come from a well-respected musician with integrity but from some moneygrabbing douchebag would would do anything to score an extra buck.

Oh...wait...

Edited by username
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...