Should artists just pander to more or less the lowest common denominator of their audience though? I'm not a fan of doing that, and most of my favorite artists haven't gone that route.
I stumbled upon the Peter Criss Donahue talk show episode after viewing one of the videos from this thread. I didn't watch the whole thing, but it was interesting to watch. There was a Peter Criss imposter who sold his story to a tabloid. On Donahue, Peter Criss meets up with him, and Donahue gets to the bottom of the mixup. There are a couple of other confrontations with Criss fans or supposed aquaintences on the episode.
To be clear, my post wasn't really directed at you. It was addressing the general perception of Peter being the square peg in a round hole in terms of KISS's music. My point was that all the guys were probably playing music that wasn't near and dear to their hearts. They did it to become successful. Peter greatest failing was giving up a lucrative gig to do exactly what? Put out a couple of crappy solo albums? Marry a Playboy bunny? Go into financial ruin? He did well in those three cases. I'll give him that.
Lol I didn't want to say 16ths or 8ths cause I didn't know if anyone would know what I meant. Then again if I thought a bit more I'd realize a site like this would be bound to attract musicians. Lol not to smart Smart.
LCD bands like KISS and their individual members should, IMO. Most KISS fans were small children, or rockout teens who didn't sign up to have their musical horizons broadened by their heroes. If they wanted to listen to Earth Wind & Fire (and very few did), they could go buy EWF vinyls. I just think of all those little kids crying, listening to their PETER vinyls. It just ain't right
If you're in KISS which at this point in time was an enterprise directed at a young audience then, yeah, you do pander to the lowest common denominator if you're ballsy enough to release solo albums under an established band name. Again, the point was made that had these albums been packaged and marketed differently then, fine, let your muse take you where it will. But to release something so foreign and counterintuitive to what you KNOW your audience is expecting is fool hardy and almost begging for rejection.
But it's not an issue of the musicians complaining about it. It's an issue of the fans complaining about it. The musicians know they're taking a risk by doing something different. It's not a risk they should avoid just because of some close-minded fans, in my opinion.
There can't be too many things in the KISS catalogue that sound as dated as the keyboard line going through You Matter To Me. I don't care for that sound and the 'oohs' and 'ahhs' of the backing vocals grate on me too. If finally hearing Peter's album a couple of nights ago was a 'come to Jesus' moment then listening to this song is a 'punching Jesus in the face' moment. I just don't like it and it's easily in the running for worst song on the album. That Best of Solo Albums cassette that we've referenced several times should have just embraced the straight ballads since Peter was the Beth Guy anyway. If I'd have heard Easy Thing or I Can't Stop The Rain in 1978 they would have made more sense from Mr. Beth. You Matter To Me would have just baffled me and sent me to Ace, Paul or Gene's albums looking for solace.
Where was the issue of the artists complaining about it brought up? You asked if an artist should pander to the lowest common denominator to please their fans. My answer is: yes, if you're in KISS, with a young audience with expectations set by 6 preceding albums of a certain ilk and the band playing off the super hero vibe at this time, you don't throw them a curve ball and release something that sounds like Christopher Cross or Meat Loaf.
I Was Made For Lovin' You, for instance, sounds pretty dated... But we'll see about that when we get to eighties Kiss!!!
Let's put it this way: Anything Kiss recorded post-1983 sounds very dated, to be honest. And their 'new' stuff (2009-2012) sounds even more dated, but this time very much on purpose!
It's used in advertising constantly though, and 2 Many DJ's have used it a lot in their mixes, so it's managed to probably remain more current than anything else they've recorded, despite the fact that it's easy to audibly carbon date it to around 1978/79.
You Matter To Me took me some tuning in, I must admit, I just wasn't ready for that. It just springs from a whole other musical perspective. It could've very well charted back in '78, it's a very cool track and very much of its time. I love that late seventies smooth vibe! I think the arrangements are very, very well done, very well produced, and the backing vocals add a lot of depth to the track. Peter's delivery great, full of passion. His playing is very tasty, just the right kind of beat for the song. I really dig Peter's groovy drumming, actually.
You Matter To Me is several steps up from the album opener to me. It has a bit more of a sinewy sound to it, despite the yacht rocky synths - but Peter is quite capable of pulling this type of song off and I think - well, to me, anyway, it would have been a much cooler album if he had recorded these tracks with a Booker T and MGs backing band type approach - he's a distinct enough singer that he could hold his own on top of a nice minimalist groove.
But it was the record company who marketed these as KISS albums, am I correct? You can't fault Peter for not pandering to his audience if that part of it wasn't his decision to begin with.
I'm not sure if it was the record company, they were pretty big with a lot of clout. It may be as simple as not expecting the backlash for doing what he liked. Just a thought. Pax
I agree. Gene's primary motivation was to be rich and famous, as well. If he could have achieved that playing lounge music in a band that bored him to tears, he probably would have gone that route. Luckily for him, he met a guy with tastes in music very similar to his, who also had a drive to make it playing harder music, and with more theatricality than was the norm. That's why they're still together 45 years later! Actually, I think Paul is more into Motown, r&b and funk than Gene is. They both are, but I think Paul is more into that stuff. I definitely don't want to spend much time bagging on Peter. I get the sense many here feel I'm being too hard on him. I love the guy. The main reason he gets a bit more criticism from me is, because he handled the last year-and-a-half he was in KISS so poorly. If he had just decided to quit, wished the guys well and went on his way, the guy would no doubt be a mythical legend in the minds of most KISS fans. But he didn't do that. Not only did he make life miserable for everyone else in the KISS camp, he betrayed the audience that was paying their hard-earned money to go see him, and cheer him on for 90 mins each night! In the world of KISS, there can be no greater sin, right? Those guys busted their butts night after night to put on a great show, no matter what else was going on. I think it was you who said it best not too long ago. When you read his book, you just see a guy sabotaging his own success, time and again. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone should be forgiven for those mistakes, if they demonstrate that they've grown from them and are trying to improve themselves. When you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, they aren't mistakes any longer. It's a person engaging in destructive behavior.
You Matter To Me I like this song! I even own a Time-Life 8 CD set of late 70's early 80's soft rock hits! Now that doesn't mean there aren't some duds on that collection because, man, there totally are. This song is straight out of that mold, England Dan and John Ford Coley territory. Does that make the song great? Well, no, but it's OK and, in fact, I've had it stuck in my head a little bit after listening to it. One of the main problems I have with Peter's record is the sequencing can be sort of jolting. The opening track is a punchy r&b influenced tune and then this song just doesn't seem to follow suit, not a proper flow. But taken on its own I like it.
There is a time and a place for everything, even sappy stuff like EW&F...and EW&F had the smarts never to put stuff on their albums like Burn Bitch Burn, am I right? Bier ist Bier, und Schnapps ist Schnapps
Put me down as another fan of EW&F. Their earliest material was anything but sappy. They were tremendous instrumentalists. They got a lot more slick as time went on, but even their later albums are interesting.
