Recall (as I am sure you do) that I reviewed original KISS guitarist Ace Frehley's autobiography awhile back. I decided to move on to original drummer Peter Criss' tome next. (Gene Simmons has one out too, and Paul Stanley supposedly has one in the works). The common perception regarding the original KISS line-up is that Simmons and Stanley were the more sober, reasonable organizers, while Ace and Peter were the drunken, drug-adled creative wild cards. After reading both Frehley's and Criss's accounts, I'd say that is probably true.
I have to say that I was genuinely surprised by how engaging Criss's book was from start to finish. Even the non-KISS parts held my interest, which I did not expect. His stories of growing up a street tough in Brooklyn, being abused by repressed nuns at Catholic school, playing gigs in mob-run bars, and getting into the music biz were interesting. Also his post-KISS life held my interest as well, especially his ultimately successful battle with breast cancer. But, of course, his decadent stories of KISS are why we are here. And The Catman delivers. It is a no holds barred, explicit rock and roll memoir that can get pretty sleazy, even for a rock and roll memoir. You have to hand it to Criss for at least coming across as honest about his rock and roll days in the fast lane.
Cross referencing Ace and Peter's accounts, some truths emerge...
1. Gene Simmons is an a-hole. Most of you knew that, but the depth of his a-holeness is truly infinite. As with Ace's book, Peter is is happy to dish on Simmons' sex addictions on the road. The stories are prolific. At their peak, the band had a separate hotel suite at each stop on the road where the groupies would all be waiting. While the others would at least clean up after a show before indulging, Simmons would not even bother to shower or completely take off his make-up. He would show up, declare that he was "ready for a hot meal," and grab whoever was available.
2. Ace and Peter were definitely viewed as the junior partners, yet Frehley was a key songwriter and often a fan favorite. Criss wrote and sang their biggest hit, "Beth." While Ace was bothered by Gene and Paul's condescending attitude, Peter is absolutely seething throughout the book. You can tell that he is genuinely hurt by their attitude and he feels wronged.
3. For the second KISS book I've read now, Paul Stanley still comes across as a ghost. Gene Simmons is drawn in vivid colors in both books (even showing moments of kindness and thoughtfulness amidst abhorent behavior), but Paul Stanley (the most frequent lead singer and "front man"), has very little personality, other than Peter describing him as "Machiavellian." "Gene was crass and brutal, but he had a real naivete about him. But Paul could cut your throat and he'd be out of the room before you even realized you were bleeding...Gene might have been a control freak, but Paul usually got whatever he wanted."
4. Both Ace and Peter feel as if they were done wrong by the other two. And they were. Yet, after reading both books and their entirely frank accounts of their own (and eachother's) substance abuse problems, I can also see things from Gene and Paul's points of view. As the sober two trying to keep the machine going, working with Ace and Peter would have been maddening. Ace and Peter both only partially acknowledge that.
As with Frehley's book, Peter Criss gives lip service to warning the reader about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, but also clearly revels in telling of his drunken exploits. (For good reason, they are extremely entertaining if they are all true...especially some stories involving John Belushi). One part that I found especially amusing was his description of some of the dives that he played once he went solo in the 80's and early 90's. Like a place called The Sandbox, that literally had sand for its floor and was about the size of a large playground sandbox. From Madison Square Garden to the Sandbox. Also, however unintentionally funny it was, where he discussed how disappointed he was that a solo album full of ballads for some reason flopped. He goes on about being despondent about this record not reaching the masses, and how he was particularly proud of a version of "Send in the Clowns."
But in the end, what saves Peter's book is his frank, down to earth writing style. He is often as amazed as the reader is at the crazy rock and roll lifestyle of the 70's, and so it doesn't really come across as bragging as much as him just telling you what happened. He never does lose that average guy persona of a lucky musician from the streets of Brooklyn who happened to make it very, very big. There are no amazing revelations or deep messages here, this is just an engaging rock and roll memoir from a true survivor.
*** out of *****.
Since KISS has been nominated for a second time for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, here is my criteria breakdown for their Hallworthiness...
Influence: 8/10...As much as many critics and Rolling Stone is loathe to admit it, almost every hard rock or metal group who came after KISS acknowledges a debt to them. Simmons and Stanley make it hard to like them these days (especially with their hired guns wearing Ace and Peter's make-up), but the KISS of the 70's was huge for their genre. Alice Cooper and others broke the ground with the glam show before KISS, but KISS took it to new heights. A lot of guitar players love Ace Frehley too.
Innovation: 4/10...musically, none. This is meat and potatoes c*ck rock. Any innovation would have to be on the business/marketing side of things, with the KISS Army, the action figures, etc. Rock and roll as marketing machine has never been done this masterfully before or since. I'm not saying that is necessarily a plus, but it is a fact.
Quality of work: 5/10...I mean, this ain't Dylan or the Beatles. But for straightforward radio rock, they've got some fun stuff and you could do worse. A couple of their records do hold up as pretty great hard rock records too (KISS, Destroyer, and the live juggernaut Alive!, which was one of the key double live records of the decade of big double live records).
Intangibles: +1 Bonus Point for being one of the biggest bands of the 70's, commercially speaking. The Rockhall proudly boasts that commercial success is not part of their criteria. Perhaps not. But I have always argued that since Rock and Roll is a popular music for the masses, massive commercial success should be a (small) part of the equation if an artist reaches Himalayan commercial peaks. And in the end, I bet it factors in for the voters as well.
Rockhall Credentials: 7/10 (averaging them all plus bonus). Borderline, perhaps, but they deserve induction primarily due to influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment