KISS frontman Paul Stanley was recently a guest on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” where he discussed his former bandmates drummer Peter Criss and guitarist Ace Frehley implying that they carried “a lot of resentment” over the fact that some of the other members of the band were more “focused” and “driven” to succeed than they were, which ultimately led them to sabotage their careers.
“It’s very difficult to move forward when two of the people are, at times, like flat tires,” Stanley explained [as transcribed by Blabbermouth]. “It becomes more of a problem when their reason for being is to foil and to throw off track what you’re trying to do. So, at some point, it really became more about trying to disrupt what we were trying to do with no regard to whether or not what they wanted to do was right or wrong; they just wanted, ‘Let’s screw Gene [Simmons] and Paul. So we’ll say no, and they’ll say yes.’ So it really became very, very, very difficult.”
Stanley claimed that he was in favor of splitting the band’s finances evenly in the early years, but that things changed once Ace and Peter started putting less effort into the group, leaving Paul and Gene to take over. This, in turn, caused a rift between the bandmembers, necessitating a change in the group’s lineup.
When asked why he thinks Ace and Peter were seemingly so intent on working against their bandmates, Stanley said, “I think self-sabotaging comes into it, because, I think, that’s been something that’s run through parts of their lives. But I also think that there was a lot of resentment. And, honestly, I don’t believe in resenting people for what they can do that you can’t. if you’re lucky enough to have people around you who can do what you can’t, make them your best friend. Everybody can’t be the best at what they do, but you can benefit from being around those people. So, look, I never wanted or expected anybody in the band to do necessarily the same amount of work that I did, but I expected them to give a hundred percent. I was all for splitting things evenly in the original lineup of the band up until those guys departed the first time, but you have to give your best.”
He continued, “I think [our] focus and drive and determination and seeing the whole picture and wanting this to be as good as it could be, as opposed to falling back on, ‘It’s rock and roll.’ Well, rock and roll is no excuse for mediocrity, and rock and roll is no excuse for not doing your job. If somebody says, ‘Oh, my playing is rock and roll.’ No, that’s just bad. You know, there’s bad and then there’s rock and roll…Look, it’s a long time ago, and it’s kind of like talking about a girlfriend or wife you had a long time ago and trying to disseminate what went wrong. At some point it really doesn’t matter.”
Stanley says that ego clashes and disagreements over songwriting credits contributed to creating an unhealthy environment and he makes no apologies for taking charge of the group.
“I don’t know the mentality that wants to sabotage what ultimately benefits you,” Stanley said. “Look, if you’re in a band that’s doing great and you’re not the primary songwriter and the primary singer, well, you should revel in what you have. You know, the idea of equality… Some have to be more equal than others. Everybody can be in car together, but somebody’s gotta drive. We’re all going in the same direction. But when people reach the point of saying, ‘Well, I want an equal amount of songs.’ Well, do we leave off ‘Strutter’ so we can put your song on, or do we leave off ‘Detroit Rock City’? It doesn’t work like that. I don’t believe that there’s any birthright or that we should expect a quota in anything. We get what we deserve, and somebody has to decide that.”
He continued: “The key to a great band or any great situation is doing what’s best for the situation, not what’s best for you. I don’t have to be right, I just wanna see the right thing happen. So if you’re more tied up in the ego gratification or in the control factor… I honestly don’t mean to control anything, but I do have a point of view, and I guess I’ve earned my place at this juncture. But everybody gets a chance to state their views, and hopefully they are always with the best intentions, and I think that’s the way the band works now. We have a drummer [Eric Singer] who doesn’t like to take a solo, and this guy could play a better solo with one hand than most drummers could play with every limb of their body. So it’s all for one and one for all.”
In other KISS news, The Pulse Of Radio reports that “Love Gun: Deluxe Edition” will be made available on October 27th. The two-disc CD features the original 1977 album, along with a bonus disc featuring assorted demos and live tracks.
Vintage Vinyl describes the release as “the first disc includes a remastered version of the original album while disc two has demos, three live performances from a 1977 Lakeland, Florida concert and an interview with Gene Simmons. A rarity for any expanded edition of an album, the deluxe edition includes a glimpse into Paul Stanley’s creative process on Love Gun (Teaching Demo) with Stanley talking through the various chords of the song.”
Love Gun: Deluxe Edition track list:
Disc 1 (Original Album):
I Stole Your Love
Christine Sixteen
Got Love For Sale
Shock Me
Tomorrow And Tonight
Love Gun
Hooligan
Almost Human
Plaster Caster
Then She Kissed Me
Disc 2 (Demos, Interviews & Live)
Much Too Soon (Demo)
Plaster Caster (Demo)
Reputation (Demo)
Love Gun (Teaching Demo)
Love Gun (Demo)
Gene Simmons Interview (1977)
Tomorrow And Tonight (Demo)
I Know Who You Are (Demo)
Love Gun (Live 1977)
Christine Sixteen (Live 1977)
Shock Me (Live 1977)
148 Responses
Of the three post Alive! golden era KISS albums, Destroyer, Rock & Roll Over, and Love Gun, I think Love Gun gets the bronze. It’s debatable whether Destroyer or R&RO gets the gold. While LG had the title track and Shock Me (both amazing), the other second tier songs, while good, were not as strong as the second tier songs on the other two albums. For example, Makin’ Love is a much stronger tune than I Stole Your Love. Baby Driver stronger than Hooligan. Do You Love Me better than Tomorrow and Tonight. Mr. Speed as good or better than any LG second tier song. Christine Sixteen is kinda lame, and the lyrics are kind of embarrassing and inapproprite, especially by today’s standards. BL, though, all three of these albums illustrate what a top notch producer brings to the table. Compare the production of these three to the first three studio albums (or compare Alive! versions of the songs from the first three studio albums for that matter). There was range, sonic dynamics, experimentation, a mix of different instruments, etc. Compare to the albums that are produced in house by Paul, which seem to all be the same tempo, all volume is at the same level, no acoustic underlying texture, every vocal is screamed out, lacking memorable guitar riffs, etc. Of course we realize now that Paul and Gene don’t want to split the money with an outside producer. I’m just sayin’…
Exactly! – Great Post
There is a reason why there are producers who get almost as much credit for their creativity as the musicians themselves, they give something to the band, the song, the sound, that those directly involved – and therefore sort of “blinded by their own creation – cannot see. And sometimes a producer or your wife has to say, no, you think this is good, but I tell you it is crap. Someone who can be brutally honest for the sake of the whole project. Paul just cannot be that person.”Destroyer” is one great example for that theory.
Quote. “if you’re lucky enough to have people around you who can do what you can’t, make them your best friend.” Well said, Ace especially could and still can do things way beyond Paul’s ability on guitar. Ace a sloppy player? Maybe compared to the modern guitar slingers, but look at live footage from all eras of the band’s carrer: half of the time he is busier prancing around than hitting chords properly. Sometimes I come to suspect they have a file running underneath to cover that up because you hear rhythm guitar but you don’t see him play continuously – but dance. So according to the logic he again displays in this interview, dancing must be more important than guitar playing. And he sure gave that 100% … he even points out his hip surgery to show off as the one of 100% commitment, oh dear … Well, on the contrary, Ace gave the band some musical integrity that could not be argued with when trying to defend being a fan of that silly band in makeup whose qualities alledgedly were only in showmanship but in music, as many said and still say … Ace is also respected by the fans for being a nice guy, he admits his failures, he is not trying to overemphasize his importance in the band like Paul has been doing for so long now. So Paul, take your own advice, be friendly to people who helped you rise to fame, without them and Gene you would be a nobody today. Also I do not think it is because the interviewers keep asking to same questions, questions are discussed beforehand with the management, people like Stanley are in the position to have the interview and the message they want,or there will be no interview, it is not investigative journalism.
I know a guy who hated Kiss, he loved only indie rock/folk. Wilco, etc. I played “Deuce” from Alive! for him. He walked away shaking his head, then came back in the room when Ace started shredding. “Damn, he’s good! I had no idea, man”, he said. Now he still does not like Kiss music. But he tips his hat to Ace. Ace really was the musical power of Kiss.
Yet another nice statement: “I don’t have to be right, I just wanna see the right thing happen.” That is exactly the statement of all those people who are in fact the ones saying that THEY they know the truth, the ONLY truth, so in the end “to see the right thing happen” just means they and only they will decide what is right and what is wrong, whose song is good and whose isn’t. Ergo, if Paul and Gene said it was right, automatically Ace and Peter were wrong. No wonder that the latter two lost interest and let the two “controllers” run the ship. Paul is talking a lot pseudo-intellectual sounding BS about mentality here, THIS is in fact the mentality of a person who needs to be in control all the time and therefore is right all the time, from his perspective, someone who still, after decades, needs every interview to justify hisself-satisfied decisions. We have heard it all before. The more he repeats it, the easier it is to see through his strategy.
Listen to the Dynasty tour rehearsals. Paul can’t stop telling Peter what to do. It’s in him to control. You’re talking about a guy who went from mommy and daddy’s house to having a recording contract. Add the emotional neglect from his folks growing up, and you have one selfish person to contend with.
Ten reasons why I hate Paul Stanley:
1- He answers questions that interviewers ask him.
2- He has an opinion and gives his side of the story.
3- He was unwilling to accept Ace and Peter’s addictions and lack of professionalism in the late ’70s.
4- He was unwilling to accept Ace and Peter as equal members in the late ’90s after they left the band for 15 years of further addiction and relative obscurity.
5- He was unwilling to institute a quota system so all the members in the band could get an equal number of songs and publishing money.
6- He treats the music business like a business.
7- He wants to retain the original iconic images of the band, and doesn’t want to dilute it by dressing Tommy and Eric in Monkey Boy and Turtle Dude makeup.
8- He isn’t frozen in time and looking and sounding exactly like he did in 1977.
9- He’s moved on without Ace and Peter.
10- He does what he wants to do – not what I want him to do.
Best KISS post ever.
You are exactly right, RT!! People on this site continually bash Gene and Paul for not being willing to accept the lack of professionalism of Ace and Peter, both in the late 70’s and the 90’s. They can’t get through their heads that the music business is a BUSINESS! Why would anybody put up with a couple of guys who are drunk/ high half the time, but still want to be an equal partner in the band? Paul actually kept this band alive during the 80’s, while Gene was out trying to be a movie star! Gene freely admits this! Would I have liked to have the original band survive for 40+ years? Sure! But it didn’t happen, and I am glad the Gene and Paul kept it going. They have put out some GREAT music since Ace and Peter left the band, and have also entertained TONS of people who attended their concerts. They have also made a TON of money, which is their due. I will always have great respect for Ace and Peter, but they made their decisions to leave KISS. I wish everybody would just leave the past in the past (band members, fans, and journalists included)! Lets all focus on what everybody is doing now, and forget “who did what to whom when”.
Actually, Gene and Paul were willing to accept that lack of professional attitude when only a reunion could save the sinking ship that Kiss was at the time in the music biz, so it depends on the perspective and the goal you have. Paul has always twisted the “truth” or the “facts” according to what suited him at the gven time. You call this opportunism, not attitude. Back in 1996 they were willing to deal with the two persons that were “not that easy to handle” but when Kiss had been put back on the level of great fame and fincancial success, it was time again to bash the ones who had just helped out. Maybe also because Ace left (!) them and they knew that it would devide the fan base. Is that a professional attitude?
Good post.
Facts…love all four,but those are facts…
Facts? No, these are all statements that can easily be turned like e.g. saying that (positive) he did not like to establish a quota for all four members, turn it around and then you have (negative) that he did not want A and P to have as much creative input/control as him to be able to put many of his own songs on the album. So how can we talk about facts when all we have is an outside view on things? How can we talk about facts when we have been fed his version of the “truth” so many times?
Look dude, you have no more understanding than the next guy of what goes on behind the scenes, but everything RTunes68 posted has been said or done by Paul. All four of them have issues and for anyone to say that Paul didn’t keep Kiss moving albeit a few shitty albums thru the 80’s is moronic….Ego? Yeah why let others ruin your business or band? Ace and Peter had a lot to do with Kiss, don’t get me wrong, but had Gene and Paul not kept playing in the non-makeup years there wouldn’t have been a Kiss to come back to. Anyone getting to high on their horse on either side if this argument is wrong, because all four have proven selfish, and completely self serving at times, Gene being the worst…but enough of the Paul Stanley bashing as it is his prerogative to do what he wants…for you to be so critical of anyone is pretty self serving and why should he care what you think??
That is poor circular reasoning: One could also say, if Ace and Peter had not returned there would have been no stage to enter since probably 2000 given the poor attendance and decline of the band in the mid 90s. Btw neither does he care what you defenders say or think. And actually, I was only trying to make you think in both directions, that every so-called fact can be interpreted in at least two ways – but you obvioulsy did not get that point. Another thing people here just do not (want to) understand is that those who buy the product have every right to be critical about it. So self-serving is just a stupid remark of yours, yes if one posts his own opinion here he serves himself, so-to-speak, including you. It is a game …
Once again Guitarslinger, when it comes to playing games, you’re playing with yourself, which I’m sure you’re used to. Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons own the band and the brand. The entire thing was sold to them by their partners. Back to RT’s original post, the best post ever, its Paul and Gene’s to do what they want, when they want. Its your right only to like it or not like and support it or not support it. If Ace and Peter had not returned makes it sound like they solely are responsible for the resurgence of KISS. If that were true, then Ace and Peter are also responsible for the original demise of KISS. You and I both know that is not true. At least I know that it’s not true. To George’s point, if the non-make up era doesn’t happen, 1996 doesn’t happen. If Paul and Gene don’t make the original investment in the reunion and pay the two employees, again none of it happens. Your a fan, like I and I get it. You on the other hand are really trying to look smart and a manipulator of thinking. It didn’t work for George, and its not working for me.
To DR below: again you do not fully understand the role and way of the internet. You attribute much too much importance to the posts here, in fact the whole forum thing we have today. You assume people are here to manipulate others, show their cleverness, etc., when in fact people are here for the same reason like watching the latest gossip on TV, because it is fun. You on the other hand get dead serious and need to call others dumb etc. So manipulator? Now way. Why are we here? Because we cannot tell the people in question in person so we tell each other, exchange opinions, vent our anger, whatever. If you want to show me you are smart(er) show me that you understand that the reason why people come here and post their opinions is that they like a place where they can have something like a substitutional satisfaction, i.e. find others of the same opinion and again others they can laugh at and even call idiots. It is like small talk with your neighbour about that strange or dumb person living next door … This is what I called a game. So when you imply I want to manipulate you, and counteract saying, no, does not work for me, you just show that you come here because you want to show people YOU are smart … it is funny how many times people have now told me here I was stupid just because I posted my personal opinion, seems like the more controversial an opinion is the more stupid its author must be – ridiculous. When your arguments fail you, you take the last weapon you have got in your ‘rhetorical’ arsenal, and that is blaming the other one for being stupid, a moron, etc. while thereby claiming that you yourself are of course the intelligent and superior person. Which, actually, is a clear sign of NOT being so smart at all. I see a pattern in human behaviour here … do you?
Well said.
Move on? Not frozen in time? Why the hell are they impersonating the Kiss reunion look and sound and song catalogue then???!!
Ten reasons why I hate Paul Stanley:
1- He answers questions that interviewers ask him. – and still continues to bash Ace and Peter
2- He has an opinion and gives his side of the story – no matter how biased it is
3- He was unwilling to accept Ace and Peter’s addictions and lack of professionalism in the late ’70s – unless it makes him a lot of money.
4- He was unwilling to accept Ace and Peter as equal members in the late ’90s after they left the band for 15 years of further addiction and relative obscurity – unless it makes him a lot of money.
5- He was unwilling to institute a quota system so all the members in the band could get an equal number of songs and publishing money – even though his and Gene’s songs were not much better.
6- He treats the music business like a business – the business of screwing people over.
7- He wants to retain the original iconic images of the band, and doesn’t want to dilute it by dressing Tommy and Eric in Monkey Boy and Turtle Dude makeup – except for Eric Carr and Vinnie Vincent.
8- He isn’t frozen in time and looking and sounding exactly like he did in 1977 – only his face is frozen due to all the botox. He does not sound like 1977 – he sounds much worse.
9- He’s moved on without Ace and Peter – unless he needs them to make more money.
10- He does what he wants to do – not what I want him to do – thereby going against his “all for the fans” mantra.
What about Vinnie? He set Kiss on fire!!!!
Vinnie’s lucky he didn’t set himself on fire.