Paul Stanley brings up a good point, should bands carry on without any original members?

Oh, well then that's just scary.

 

I wish I could pretend that KISS music needs to be preserved for future generations for the sake of this conversation, but I can't. Like many people here, I've seen them at least a dozen times between 1976 and 2000. IMO, if you didn't see them with Ace in his prime, you're really just too late to the party. That goes for any band from the period. Queen? Sorry, but you missed them too. Beatles? Going to see Rain probably isn't going to scratch your itch.

The good news is that there are lots of young bands touring their first three or four releases who are fantastic. It's too bad that most of these nostaligic ticket buyers will never know about them.

 

Yes.

 

Names of the two core members in the band name. Truth in advertising.

 

This is a very flawed analogy. The magic of a good rock n roll band is the combination of personality, ability, perspective and individual talents.
If what he is saying is true then any decent covers band could be considered The Beatles.

A football team is not founded on the right people accidentally finding each other at the right time.

Also your Super Bowl or premiership team has a few golden years before players, coaches and club members move on, and then it's another teams day in the sun. The players have been replaced but they can't consistently have the magic of the winning streak. Same thing, it's a combination of the right people to make it great.

He's just using it as an excuse to put Eric and Tommy in Ace and Peter's make up.

 

In Kiss' case it might be a blessing. Who knows, maybe in a hundred years the band will actually be able to make good music.

 

Get 4 unknowns, call the touring show "The Kiss Experience", and it will last for YEARS. New fans will always be around.

 

Actually they do mediocre business in the many secondary venues they've played in for the past decade or more. Many half empty buildings. They are long past playing major venues for multiple nights and selling out, nevermind stadiums unless they're part of a multi-band festival. This has a lot to do with the fact that they've already become the tribute band that Paul envisions carrying on 'the brand' with half of the members now simply hired hands. The numbers don't lie.

 

That's because he will continue to make money on this "franchise". Why not just send people around the world in make up playing KISS songs? Nobody will know and later they can play football.

Seriously, they saw it as a business years ago.

 

Kiss could even be the Blue Man Group of Rock.
(There's at least 6 versions miming around the world.)
Just create several versions of Kiss touring the major continents, all at the same time.
Let's call it Franchise Rock.

 

Lots of good responses, thank you.

 

A friend in Vegas said the 'fake Michael Jackson' is $130 a ticket.

 

Yes bands' personnel can change and they can go on. Look at Pink Floyd post Barrett. However, the concept of completely replacing the band is ridiculous and pointless. No doubt there will be a Kiss 2.0, but it will be no different to an Elvis Tribute Act. I certainly wouldn't be interested in buying their records.

P S I'm going to see Kiss tomorrow night, first time in over a decade and I suspect for the last time. Hope Paul Stanley's voice isn't too far gone.

 

About ten years ago or so I attended a show from the band The Musical Box, from Quebec, Canada. This is the only authorized tribute band by Genesis. The show I saw was a replica of the Foxtrot tour: same stage, customs, format, etc. The guy who played Gabriel had a voice very similar than that of the real Peter Gabriel. Even the drummer sang like P. Collins. I thought it was a great event and gave me the chance to have an idea of what a Genesis show was way back then.

But I think this tribute band plays in few cities across Europe, Canada and USA. Small scale, niche market.

As some mentioned above, I can see Kiss attempting to do something like that: recreate the Kiss show from the seventies for those who missed it. But again, would have to be small scale. No new music. I wonder if that model could sustain all the expenses related to keep all the fireworks and visual support that goes on a Kiss show.

 

if it happens, and is successful, what does it say about original members?
are they primarily performers, not musicians?
it's like they wrote a musical and starred in the first run, but people are really there to see the musical not the performers.
pro wrestling continues, they just replace the heroes and villains.

 

"Paul Stanley brings up a good point...." is my new party approach line.

I sidle up to some folks, take a long contemplative draw on my pipe, stare off into the distance and say...

"You know, Paul Stanley brings up a good point...." and then go into some discussion of philosophy.

Yes, must try this.

 

[EDIT: Sorry, didn't see the post by lightbulb already suggesting this]

Well, using this logic, KISS could become a franchise, with a different line-up for each market, maybe even each major city. There might be potential for much greater revenue, since you could have a local franchise of KISS playing in a given market at any time, and fans around the world wouldn't have to wait years for the next tour.

 

Eric Carr's was a tad silly though, from concept to costume. Vinnie the Wiz on the other hand worked better. I think the point is that Kiss completely mistimed & mismanaged the make up/no make up issue. They took it off too late (and in desperation as opposed to being ahead of the curve). Then the reunion and when original members departed again, they kept the make up, and as their hair has receded they have put on wigs to maintain that look. I know that shifts more concert tickets, but I'd prefer to see them without make up and in the absence of Ace Frehley, would prefer Bruce Kulick on lead guitar (or indeed his brother Bob).

Dropping the make up for the Unmasked album would have been bold & allowed them to make the no brainer selection for their new drummer, Anton Fig (In the Fig - Carr debate, I say check out Rip It Out, I rest my case).

 

That was Peter Green's idea yeah. Still, they are just a rhythm section and not writers or frontmen.

 

"Just a rhythm section"?! They are original members and the only musicians to play in every iteration of the group. And they did all the hiring. OK, so they're not Jan & Dean, I get that. But it's their band. If Buckingham & Nicks wander off, no one with any sense will consider them Fleetwood Mac. ... An unusual case since it's an institution.

 

An important rhythm section, but people don't buy concert tickets or records to hear a wonderful rhythm section. They did a very successful tour for Tango In The Night without Buckingham...the Time era band without Christine, Buckingham and Nicks made them an oldies act though.

 

So, um ... what's your point? That use of the Fleetwood Mac name should be ended when the last of a half dozen versions disbands? Because it was too popular? Getting back to the OP, they have every right to carry on in whatever form they choose because it's their band. And if they do, I'll buy a ticket.

 

Check this out, not HD quality unfortunately, their first gig with Eric Singer after Criss' departure in 2001, Frehley still in the Band.



I don't think anyone can suggest that they weren't at the top of their game.

 

The fake MJ might have actually sold more $$$ in tickets since 2010 than the real MJ did in his time alive.

Elvis did that tour maybe 15 years ago that was him on a video screen with the original 70's band playing live in person. Some estates have been toying with the idea of selling tickets to a hologram. Japanese promoters have sold out arenas in that country with a fictional hologram pop star.

 

I think some metal acts like LA Guns have 3 versions touring at the same time doing tiny clubs in every nook and cranny metal club in the US.