Buying a bass off Gene Simmons

EricTheWeary

It's amazing where the brain can get to when you can't focus on the job in hand. According to the (2014) rig rundown Gene plays a new bass almost every gig and then sells it for about $10k, a package which seems to include buying the guitar off the man himself. I remember going to see UB40 ten years ago as the first band I was aware of selling on the night recordings but this takes it to another level. http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y513/phlplls/Mobile Uploads/2015-07/13BD1562-FAEA-4451-92DC-6A569DA63F89.png_zpskh5r0txg.jpeg This isn't exactly new but my flabber was gasted.

octatonic

That guy will do anything for money.

I bet he'd lick badger cum off the anus of a man with bowel cancer if you slung him a few quid.

stickyfiddle

octatonic said:

That guy will do anything for money.

I bet he'd lick badger cum off the anus of a man with bowel cancer if you slung him a few quid.

As long as it was Kiss-branded badger cum..

not_the_dj

ewwwww

ftumch

Funnily enough, this doesn't lower my opinion of the man or his band at all.

EricTheWeary

ftumch;715138" said:

Funnily enough, this doesn't lower my opinion of the man or his band at all.

I wouldn't say it lowered my opinion, just an interesting thing. Given how much guitarists and bassists rely on Mojo playing a brand new instrument every night seems counter intuitive.

DesVegas

But i don't even play bass.. still 10 g's is 10 g's ... lets do it.

steamabacus

That Guy Certainly Knows How To CAPITALISE! On His Fame.

usedtobe

Wow. What a fucking whore he is.

ftumch

EricTheWeary said:

ftumch;715138" said:

Funnily enough, this doesn't lower my opinion of the man or his band at all.

I wouldn't say it lowered my opinion, just an interesting thing. Given how much guitarists and bassists rely on Mojo playing a brand new instrument every night seems counter intuitive.

Absolutely agree with the mojo thing which I'm coming round to believe is 100% in the musician and nothing to do with the instrument at all.

I did mean that my expectations of kiss as a bunch of money grabbing opportunists rather than musicians couldn't possibly be any lower though

Not that I want to be negative or anything just my opinion. 

not_the_dj

I'll admit it, I did pay to see Kiss once, in the non make-up days on the Revenge tour 1992 (Brum NEC). It was a great big dumb rock'n'roll pantomime of a show, but quite fun.

They had the Sphinx head stage set, started off with all dry ice and lasers then the band emerged from it's mouth....pure Spinal Tap.

Rox

I have no problem at all with Gene Simmons and Kiss.  I don't mind their commercial activities one little bit.  They're not forcing me to buy any of their tat - but at least they're honest about it.

I have more respect for a band that will unashamedly take your cash with a smile and big dumb rock and roll nonsense, than those shoegazing with their 'we'll never sell out' mantras while they take wads of your cash anyway with highbrow limited editions.

Saw Kiss on the Psycho Circus tour - so the original members...  It was bloody brilliant.  Enormously entertaining, and you get full value for the ticket price.

FelineGuitars

As a former die-hard Kiss fan I've just gotten tired of that aspect of their commercialism.

Paul Stanley smashes a cheap guitar on stage each night.

He used to throw the shards into the crowd- now it is sold for $5000

Paul is doing an acoustic set on the Kiss cruise.

After the set the Shure mic and acoustic guitar are sold to a fan for $5000

I think I'm more upset that they continue touring when Paul's voice is utterly destroyed (worse than David Coverdale's) when it used to be the band's strong point

richh

I have no problem with Gene Simmons as a businessman, if he can get away with it, good on him!

What I really don't understand is why any sane person would pay for his old tat?  Normally I'd say that it is down to personal taste, but if you're going to get something owned by your idol, then maybe a Hendrix, Clapton, Townsend, Andy Summers or whatever may have some validity.  But Gene Simmons!

He may be a great showman, entrepreneur, character, etc, etc.  But surely no normal person would pay inflated prices for his stuff?  I know I'm wrong, as he's made a mint selling his stuff, but I just don't get it.

Rox

I did buy a Washburn PS500 - I loved that guitar... but other than the records, I can resist buying their overpriced tat.

If people didn't buy them, they wouldn't sell 'em...

fnpt

I never understood the appeal of KISS. They always seemed to me like a juvenile boy band with tacky songs and poor playing and the outfits are just plain ridiculous. I can maybe understand the novelty in the seventies but these days it amazes me that adults will even listen to them.

WezV

richh said:

What I really don't understand is why any sane person would pay for his old tat?  Normally I'd say that it is down to personal taste, but if you're going to get something owned by your idol, then maybe a Hendrix, Clapton, Townsend, Andy Summers or whatever may have some validity.  But Gene Simmons!

Its not even his old tat.  Its his brand new tat he has onyl used one

 

Surely the value  in an artist played guitar is that they liked it enough to play it more than once

richh

Apparently Chuck Berry views instruments in this way, his only interest is that it be tax deductible.  If he gets wind of Gene's little scheme, he'll be on that game like white on rice...

FelineGuitars

fnpt said:

I never understood the appeal of KISS. They always seemed to me like a juvenile boy band with tacky songs and poor playing and the outfits are just plain ridiculous. I can maybe understand the novelty in the seventies but these days it amazes me that adults will even listen to them.

Oh - I understood the appeal of Kiss and was a huge fan from the late 70s through to the reunion tour in the late 90s

Getting too close to a band or knowing too much about them can spoil your enjoyment of the music.

Gene Simmons was better when he kept his gob shut and it was better for the band too.

I like the interviews where he talks about his love of certain old bands: Beatles, Stones, Who , Led Zep, Slade (yes Slade) Humble Pie etc and of comic books and horror movies, but I absolutely hate all the cliched soundbites he comes out with - especially about the marketing and money and his sexual conquests (although he has shut up about that since the Saville business).

It's a huge turn off from a band that I enjoyed.

Sure the music is a bit simple and maybe a bit purile , but like Quo and AC/DCit was good fun and the stageshow was special.

The whole selling their guitars etc every time they go out is a bit lame in my opinion

I also wish Stanley wouldn't smash a guitar every night - it's so daft

Dave_Mc

^ Surely if they do the smash and sell thing too much it'll devalue it? I mean, it's one thing owning a gene simmons bass if he only occasionally sells one, another if he's selling one every gig.

proggy

fnpt;723623" said:

I never understood the appeal of KISS. They always seemed to me like a juvenile boy band with tacky songs and poor playing and the outfits are just plain ridiculous. I can maybe understand the novelty in the seventies but these days it amazes me that adults will even listen to them.