Had a chance to read Paul Stanley’s book on my many flights lately. I was looking forward to seeing how much Paul would open up in a book like this. In my limited dealings with him over the decades I have found him to be fairly private and very sensitive to anything not in line with the current plan, so his approach to an auto biography would no doubt be interesting. Contrary to what many think, and despite whatever feelings he has about me, Paul was actually always my favorite member of the band. For a long time he was one of my favorite singers and his songs were always what I liked best in Kiss. I agree with his own feelings throughout the book that he has always been the prime driving force in the band. In much of the press he has done leading up to this book he has painted doing this for some greater more legitimate reason than most other rock books. I don’t see any great difference with this than any of the other MANY rock books out there. It is very well written, entertaining, inspiring, and told from his perspective and how he saw it, like ALL of these books are. But I don’t see a great distinction over many other good ones that are out there as Paul has said is the case with his. The one down side is that his is the last of the Kiss members books. The good; that he answers some of the others books, the bad is that many of these stories we have heard already. Especially if you consider we just had the very in depth Nothin’ To Lose as far as Kiss books for history which he was a writer on. But still for any Kiss fan this is a more than worthwhile read. But like ANY book it is his spin and take on the story as he wants to tell it. That is the case with all the books, it’s up to the reader to find the balance from four peoples perspectives when it comes to Kiss. Not surprisingly Paul’s book paints him as the guiding force in the band throughout and rarely does he ever take responsibility for anything that was bad for Kiss. For example he describes the demise of Kiss in the late 70’s to be more about the costumes and stage show than writing a disco song. I can tell you even though it was a hit, I Was Made For Loving You was DEATH to the Kiss fan base at the time and some still haven’t recovered from it. The shots at Ace and even more so Peter are expected, but more surprising are the shots at Gene and how bad their relationship was at some stages. Almost every bad decision was because of someone else it seems at times. Some other interesting things:
*No acknowledgment of what a big song “Shock Me” was for Ace and the Love Gun LP, or the success of Ace’s solo album over the others with “NY Groove”.
*Not much made of the impact “Beth” had crossing the band to an entire new audience. A huge moment in the bands history to get on the radio.
*Glosses over some of the later 80’s albums. Almost no mention of Crazy Nights and recording with noted producer Ron Nevison. Would have loved more back story on the making of the 80’s and 90’s albums.
*Talks about the many bad songs Gene mailed in during the 80’s but outside of the two on Smashes Thrashes (which were bad and he does say so!) never mentions his role in some duds as well. Bang Bang You? Read My Body? Although his material was mostly better he had some clunkers for sure along the way.
*Good to see how he admits not handling the passing of Eric Carr within the band the right way. How the band didn’t stop while Eric attempted to recover is hard to believe. It did bother Eric Carr greatly that while he was fighting cancer his band was already recording with Eric Singer, who he predicted would replace him. Def Leppard stood by their drummer when he lost an arm, Kiss could have waited to see how Carr would do. He does take this on and take responsibility and it was good to see finally.
*Didn’t acknowledge that fans at the MTV unplugged in ’95 actually booed when current band was re introduced and chanted for a reunion at the end of the taping. I was in the audience. It was an avalanche that resulted in the reunion in ’96.
*Psycho Circus very glossed over. Who plays on it? Why were they not able to make a deal with Peter and Ace? Also no mention of performing with the symphony in Australia. Not my favorite thing in KISStory by any stretch but should have had a mention.
All that said I truly enjoyed the book and would suggest it to any Kiss fan. But like ALL Kiss books it is HIS version of how he saw things. I’m not about to go tit for tat with all four books and who’s told the story best and most accurate. They ALL are coming from that persons point of view and get that persons story out as they saw it. And something tells me there will be no shortage of more Kiss related books to come…
144 Responses
I think since Dana had to wade through the avalanche of KISS posts here at Trunk Central (bless your heart Dana…if you are ever in Georgia….I will buy you dinner and several shots). I think she should get the last word on Paul’s “book” (remember…I am a librarian). Dana, I am thinking something along the lines of “Hey, Paul…blow it out your ass.”
Thanks Scott,
Your post, as always, made me smile. However, I didn’t read Paul Stanley’s book. Although, I own Creatures of Night, saw the reunion tour in ’96 and am an Eric Carr fan, I’m not a KISS fan.
My favorite band is Judas Priest with John Sykes as a very CLOSE second. So, with that said, thank you again for all your kind words and for asking for my opinion, on what a has proven to be, a very heated topic.
Cheers,
Dana from EddieTrunk.com 🙂
with so many things left out would you say this would not be the book for someone catching up on Kiss, or just getting started with Kiss, i know there are many more books.
Im on the waiting list for the book from our local library…no way am I buying it…not surprised he slung mud @ ace aand peter but cant wait to read what he has to say about gene…I guess im not surprised he painted himself as the driving force of the band in the 80s…he said he felt alone while gene was off playing mr. Hollywood…he said that animalize felt more like a solo album…but im surprised he took no blame for the great disco disaster of ’79…IWMFLY basically ruined what they built up to that point….but with all the ace/pete bashing he did in the media, I guess he would come off as a hypocrite if he took any of the blame…IMO paul is the biggest bullshitter of them all…he drops cliches left and right…IMO…
My favorite KISS book is “KISS Behind The Mask” by Leaf and Sharp. It may not tell the behind the scene stories but I can deal without the drama. This goes through every album track by track with input by the original members up to post members. From Wicked Lester to Psycho Circus release. Even input by producers such as Kramer, Ezrin, Jackson, Nevison to name a few also techs, roadies, photographers and illustrators who did the covers etc…almost anyone who worked on the album or tracks. I was surprised KISS seemed very critical on their albums not many 5 star ratings. I wish a lot bands did a book like this which each member give their own individual input on the album they worked on.
I have read all 4 books. Bottom line Ace’s book by a huge stretch was the most honest & accurate with Peter’s next. Gene’s book along with Paul’s was simply what I expected. Bottom line is Paul has a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to Ace Frehley & Peter Criss. Simply you can see & hear it for yourselves, youtube it. BUT….I still love all four members equally. And I do give kudos to Paul for standing up to the RRHoF. Regardless of members we as fans prefer…ALL MEMBERS OF KISS deserve to be recognized as Hall of Famers. As far as the original “KISS” that band unfortuantly IS KISSTORY. Thankfully we can always youtube the great memories & enjoy those epic/historic classic albums. Happy Birthday Ace. Joe in The Cuse
Joe… if you liked even 1 page of Peter’s book then you are a dunce. Peter wrote a book that 100% proves what a dick he is. Ungrateful and untalented. Every single bad thing that has happened to Peter is HIS own fault and yet he doesn’t take responsibility for any of it.
Mind boggling people take that from Peter’s book. The book I read he is constantly calling out his own issues…
Eddie… the fact the Peter throws out a very damaging paragraph concerning Mark St. John goes to show Criss’ character flaws. St. John is no longer with us and yet Peter says something about him that the man cannot even defend because he is deceased. What did Peter have to gain by writing something that might not even be true. Just one of many total dick headed moves by Peter. He seems like a miserable person. Peter might call out his own issues in the book but he does not take any responsibility for those issues. Also… any Co-Author who calls himself “Ratso” is probably a hack.
Ratso is a nickname for a very well respected writer. Again, no clue about your facts. Bashing Mark St John? Why not read what Paul said about him in Guitar World recently? He bashes him big time and he HIRED him! But that doesn’t work for your slant I guess..
Pat, what the hell are you talking about? Get your facts straight before you call someone a “dunce”. You certantly didn’t make yourself look knowledgeable bud….Joe in The Cuse
What I don’t get is this automatic sainthood of people who are dead. He didn’t do anything special except die, we all freaking die sooner or later. So, by your reasoning, because he is ‘no longer with us’ he can’t be called out for being a pedophile? What motivation would Peter have to make that up? Ans: he’s not here to defend himself. Well, no shit, he’s dead. So he gets a pass then? So, then, anyone who is dead gets a pass. Peter just reported what he saw. He should omit that because Mark is dead? What I find odd is this strange perception of people who are dead, they are mythologized to a degree. Some Kiss fans travel thousands of miles, across continents, to visit Mark St. John’s(a fabricated stage name!) grave. Me, I love Peter’s candor, and he doesn’t flinch at pointing the finger at himself. It’s all there in his book.
I enjoyed Peter’s book most of all, it was very dramitic and he put allot of emotions into the writing process. As a fan, I never realized how much turmoil existed during the height of Kiss-mania-but there was. Peter’s career took an extreme nosedive after leaving Kiss and in hindsight he really should have gotten his act together while in the band – the idea of making it big on his own was crazy. Didn’t he realize that the money-well was going to run dry ? Which it did….But – I really liked the book !
Hey Eddie. Peter does take the blame for a lot of things, but most of the book shows exactly why he self destructed and why he’s too lazy to have done anything of merit since his KISS days. You can pinpoint what is messed up with Peter, when he talks about their roadies/bikers/whatever giving a chick draino and having their way with her. “But I still love those guys” he says. What a creep.
By the way, for being about the band’s music, you certainly seem focused on the makeup. And for calling fans like me who enjoy the current incarnation of the band Kook Aid Drinkers, you can kindly go to hell.
Really SO tried of addressing the Kiss silliness still. SO many more bands out there to deal with and I say the SAME things OVER AND OVER again. But some just want to jump to their own conclusions constantly regardless of what I say MANY times. Always amazes me to see some Kiss fans act so juvenile and attack the one guy who actually plays their music. Equally funny as they ignore ALL the positive things I say and just go crazy. Call me crazy Jim but it IS an issue to me when a band hired others to impersonate what others created. Go to hell? Geez, I truly hope you are like 15 with that mentality. Be sure to buy everything the band sells you NOW and NEVER have an opinion Jim, and like what you like.. done with this dumb dumb stuff..
I read all Kiss related books. Peters book seemed a bit delusional. He simply is not as talented as he describes himself. And being a fan since 1975 i never thought i would say that. The Ace book seemed to tell it like he remembers it. I dont trust the motivation for ANYTHING Gene writes. Pretty much shocked that Paul, the most guarded, actually lets us in on a major secret. I am equally shocked that a former band member never ratted him out.
I totally agree Pat.
Don totally agrees with you Pat….uhhhhhhhh…lols. Joe in The Cuse.
Pat, I’m very far from a “dunce”. Peter has (IMHO) been extremely honest & directs a lot of blame to himself. I actually read Peter’s book twice like I do all the bios. I don’t pick sides but unfortuantly history OR Kisstory has proven what has already been observed by all. Yes Peter is angry, but ungrateful? Not so sure about that. Untalented??? Gee I really believe if Peter was “Untalented” Then Gene & Paul must have been big dunces…..ehh???? —-Lesson over, Joe in The Cuse!
Not sure what book u read dude…peter bashed himself as well as the other members…it may of taken him years to get to that point but I think that he is there now…its amazing, peter/ace get bashed for years of partying but paul gets a pass on taking 5 minutes to write a disco song that just about undone what they took about 5 years to build…btw, paul blames everyone but himsel in his book..
How can you say it’s the most accurate…as Eddie just said, each one has their own interpretation on how the events went down. Not to mention Ace has even admitted to having others remember things for him. Put 20 people in a room and each one will remember it differently. Hard for me to put much faith in Ace’s book when he doesn’t himself. As Eddie said…take them all for what they are worth i.e. the authors perspective and try and assemble a picture. It’s pretty obvious all are going to take greater accolades and less blame dependent on the who the writer is.
I should clarify….and Ace did have help in respects to remembering etc: But in regards to all 4 books, sorry but IMHO Ace was the most honest. He admitted his own faults and owned them. Gene and obviously Paul certantly didn’t go down that road…and again, you can easily youtube the “stories” of this band. Would have loved to have Bill Aucoin around to give his thoughts. Joe in The Cuse.
Fair enough.
Two inconsistencies I found is one: the early tours financed by Bill Aucoin’s overdrawn American Express. For years in interviews and even from Bill himself in a spoken CD he released is that the amount was $25,000 but Paul states it was $250,000. This may seem trivial but I picked it up. The other inconsistency is how he mentions during the making of Alive 1, they cut Peter’s drum solo out?? 100,000 years is mostly Peter’s drum solo so maybe he has this confused with the solo that was cut out on Strange Ways from Hotter Than Hell. Maybe just like Paul claims his other band mate’s memories were cloudy that Paul’s may also be a little cloudy too, especially after nearly 40 years.