Ace Frehley - No Regrets - Reviewed

[Werewolf]

Bands like Kiss and Alice Cooper have always been about the characters, story and the spectacle just as much as the music. I don't want to go to a concert and see Vincent Furnier. I want to see him in character as Alice Cooper. I don't want to see a Kiss concert with short haired Stanley Eisen singing. I want to see him wigged and in costume as the Starchild.

Seeing David Lee Roth in concert with short hair and a comb over probably works just fine for Van Halen. But it's not going to work for Kiss.

[mego73]

I think Gene got plugs a long time ago but I still see that he wears a little widow's peak hairpiece when he puts on the makeup. Sometimes you can see the mesh.

Been a fan since Thanksgiving '75. Never thought of them as the greatest Rock band, (Queen has always held that title as far as I was concerned), they were and remain nothing more than a mindless form of unique and fun entertainment for me. Loved the simplistic & raw tunes, loved the look, loved the personas, loved the merchandise, and most of all loved the show itself. Critics hated them early on, parents hated them early on.

I've watched as fans dropped off with the release of Destroyer, RnR Over, Love Gun, Solos, the movie, and in even larger numbers with Dynasty & Unmasked. Soon after came the exodus of Peter & Ace fans. Then there were those who were turned off by the dropping of the makeup. A few more left after Vincent was booted, and many checked out after Eric passed away. Others went by the wayside from that point up through when the Reunion was announced, mostly out of disinterest.

While the Reunion brought home a large mass of wayward fans, it also alienated many staunch 80's/90's fans who felt betrayed by that perceived abrupt turn of events. Many went about their merry way after the Reunion tour passed through their towns, others after the 2nd leg. Psycho Circus sent even more packing, and history repeated itself when Pete & Ace departed yet again.

Still, with all of those departures, the last time KISS passed through Los Angeles on their own (2009) they filled the StaplesCenter, The Anaheim Pond and the San Diego Sports Arena...all within a 5 day period. Not bad for a band that has turned so many people off for so many decades. Especially when you consider that they couldn't sell out their one & only So. Cal show in 1992, which was held in a small 5000 capacity auditorium in San Bernardino. I can't name many American bands that had their heyday in the 70's that can still fill arenas...much less stadiums.

Earlier this year, a friend of mine was shocked when he saw Paul Stanley on George Lopez without makeup and without his stage wig. He actually felt betrayed that Paul wore a wig on stage and stated that he couldn't take him seriously any more. I couldn't help but laugh out loud since it was obvious to me that Paul's been wearing extensions & wigs onstage and offstage consistently since about 1985. Even Ace & Pete wore extensions during the Reunion tour. Not to mention Gene's fair share of raccoon hats & bouffant dos over the past 2.5 decades. I think what I found funnier than that is here's a band that has worn makeup, lipstick, tights and high heels to an absurd level for decades and yet somehow wigs make them incredulous...absolutely hilarious!

I've had a great time at every single show I have seen, regardless of lineup (even the one & only w/o Paul), and I look forward to future shows. As long as they're performing to the best of their abilities, they have absolutely nothing to apologize for. When it comes to KISS (as always) I check my lofty expectations at the door and let myself have some mindless fun.

[nvmbrsdoom5]

I will be quite happy to see KISS go on for years and years, long after Paul and Gene have retired, with new guys performing as the starchild and demon. If KISS quit for good, I would just wind up seeking out the various tribute acts in order to be entertained and see/hear those songs being performed, and odds are it won't be up to the standard that it would be if it were a properly sanctioned and backed "official tribute" act called KISS. Ace and Peter sold the rights to those characters, and when I witnessed their poor performances during the Farewell tour in 2000, honestly I never wanted to see those two guys in the makeup ever again. Eric and Tommy play great and are also fans and respectful of the legacy, I support them fully. As for Ace's book, I thought it was a decent read, had some funny bits, etc. Ace was my hero from childhood and one of the main reasons I became a musician, so I will always have regard for him, but I've been let down by him too many times with poor performances etc., watching/listening to him onstage and thinking, "oh man, what a mess". I'd rather go pay to see an impersonator do a respectful rendition of the "Spaceman" at this point. I don't expect everyone else to feel the same way as I do about it, I understand. This is just how it is for me. I enjoy the KISS experience, as long as it's bombastic, fun, and sounds good.

That being said, they're gonna have a heck of a time finding a new Starchild, because I've seen many good Demon, Spaceman, and Catman tribute guys out there but hardly any who can truly pull off Paul's voice and moves and presence!

[Mongoose1983]

I truly enjoyed your post and echo your sentiments in every vital way.

I'll go one step further and say that even though it's tough to ignore
the "mindless" nature of a band that is significantly fickle in its
manuevering of its rock n roll ethics as well as a band with essentiallly
more simplistic musical/lyrical ideas... being so intimate with the band's
history/material makes we wanna recognize there's parts of KISS
that reflect a deeper meaning/spirituality for me that dwarfs
seemingly "better" bands w/tons more of what could be considered typical credibility.

Admittedly what I just typed could be applied to so much in our lives....
its what makes us who we are: "Choices"... no matter the resons behind them.

And I'm sure everyone here recognizes this in some form....

but just thought I'd type it out here.... because KISS can exist like this
for so many people... a "guilty pleasure" because of its comprable silliness
that can actually still be a key part of a rock fan's musical identity.

And this is due to the mysterious charisma of the KISS legacy
and its strange ability to forge some of rock history's most passionate fans
(and critics!).

I agree with you. Very well said.

[huedell]

I've had a great time at every single show I have seen, regardless of lineup (even the one & only w/o Paul), and I look forward to future shows. As long as they're performing to the best of their abilities, they have absolutely nothing to apologize for. When it comes to KISS (as always) I check my lofty expectations at the door and let myself have some mindless fun.

I truly enjoyed your post and echo your sentiments in every vital way.

I'll go one step further and say that even though it's tough to ignore
the "mindless" nature of a band that is significantly fickle in its
manuevering of its rock n roll ethics as well as a band with essentiallly
more simplistic musical/lyrical ideas... being so intimate with the band's
history/material makes we wanna recognize there's parts of KISS
that reflect a deeper meaning/spirituality for me that dwarfs
seemingly "better" bands w/tons more of what could be considered typical credibility.

Admittedly what I just typed could be applied to so much in our lives....
its what makes us who we are: "Choices"... no matter the resons behind them.

And I'm sure everyone here recognizes this in some form....

but just thought I'd type it out here.... because KISS can exist like this
for so many people... a "guilty pleasure" because of its comprable silliness
that can actually still be a key part of a rock fan's musical identity.

And this is due to the mysterious charisma of the KISS legacy
and its strange ability to forge some of rock history's most passionate fans
(and critics!).

[Dark Shadow]

Been a fan since Thanksgiving '75. Never thought of them as the greatest Rock band, (Queen has always held that title as far as I was concerned), they were and remain nothing more than a mindless form of unique and fun entertainment for me. Loved the simplistic & raw tunes, loved the look, loved the personas, loved the merchandise, and most of all loved the show itself. Critics hated them early on, parents hated them early on.

I've watched as fans dropped off with the release of Destroyer, RnR Over, Love Gun, Solos, the movie, and in even larger numbers with Dynasty & Unmasked. Soon after came the exodus of Peter & Ace fans. Then there were those who were turned off by the dropping of the makeup. A few more left after Vincent was booted, and many checked out after Eric passed away. Others went by the wayside from that point up through when the Reunion was announced, mostly out of disinterest.

While the Reunion brought home a large mass of wayward fans, it also alienated many staunch 80's/90's fans who felt betrayed by that perceived abrupt turn of events. Many went about their merry way after the Reunion tour passed through their towns, others after the 2nd leg. Psycho Circus sent even more packing, and history repeated itself when Pete & Ace departed yet again.

Still, with all of those departures, the last time KISS passed through Los Angeles on their own (2009) they filled the StaplesCenter, The Anaheim Pond and the San Diego Sports Arena...all within a 5 day period. Not bad for a band that has turned so many people off for so many decades. Especially when you consider that they couldn't sell out their one & only So. Cal show in 1992, which was held in a small 5000 capacity auditorium in San Bernardino. I can't name many American bands that had their heyday in the 70's that can still fill arenas...much less stadiums.

Earlier this year, a friend of mine was shocked when he saw Paul Stanley on George Lopez without makeup and without his stage wig. He actually felt betrayed that Paul wore a wig on stage and stated that he couldn't take him seriously any more. I couldn't help but laugh out loud since it was obvious to me that Paul's been wearing extensions & wigs onstage and offstage consistently since about 1985. Even Ace & Pete wore extensions during the Reunion tour. Not to mention Gene's fair share of raccoon hats & bouffant dos over the past 2.5 decades. I think what I found funnier than that is here's a band that has worn makeup, lipstick, tights and high heels to an absurd level for decades and yet somehow wigs make them incredulous...absolutely hilarious!

I've had a great time at every single show I have seen, regardless of lineup (even the one & only w/o Paul), and I look forward to future shows. As long as they're performing to the best of their abilities, they have absolutely nothing to apologize for. When it comes to KISS (as always) I check my lofty expectations at the door and let myself have some mindless fun.

[mego73]

I don't care, I love all those guys and accept that they have flaws. I became a KISS fan just about the time they were sort of waning with Dynasty. They came to do a concert but I was told by the parents I was too young to go alone and they knew they couldn't take a whole concert so I was out of luck.

By the time I actaully did get to see them for Creatures of the Night, they didn't have Peter anymore and then I got to the concert and discovered they didn't have Ace anymore either (at first I thought Acewas trying a new makeup). I loved that concert and the few concerts I saw once they took off the makeup. But I felt so burned that I missed out on that all 4 original guys 70's show, I felt I missed out on that for good.

And then, 1997 happened and all 4 of them were able to get it together and do an updated 70's style show. And they kept it together more or less for about 5 years. I knew it couldn't last forever. I saw them 4 times in that space of time. Loved it.

I am not as hopped up this day and age to see them but if they come to my area, I might go for it.

And if the act still sells, then they should go for it as long as they feel like it as far as I am concerned.

[Mongoose1983]

I guess the question has to be asked here. What is the expectation? And how far do you let it go? At this stage, I think they sell better out of makeup than in it. For better or worse, the makeup is a gimmick. So when does the esthetic lose it's luster? Are you seeing it as it is or through fan glasses? Because I've been a fan since the 70's and attended KISS concerts in every era. But I would not pay a dime to see them today. Gene is fat. Stanley has lost his voice and is wearing a BAD wig. And I've seen better impersonators of Ace and Peter in KISS cover bands. So what is the draw? How can I, as a long time fan, justify good money for an experience that can not remotely match past performances from just ten years ago? Do you realize they are charging $1,400.00 just to meet them now? That's insane! I've met most of these guys during their best years and never paid a dime for the experience. So they are really sticking it to fans who close their eyes and follow the same old sales pitch. I think my skepticism is pretty realistic and grounded.

Paul McCartney could get the sons from his deceased band members and tour as the Beatles. Does that mean it's the Beatles? No. I liked everything KISS did up to Psycho Circus. Personally I think they should have retired as sold on the Farewell Tour. It was the original band, they looked and played well, and gave a memorable performance. It would have been an ideal exit for them. So, from my perspective, if you still want to see them in whatever guise they sell themselves in, that's great. But to the band I would say this... "Please don't ask the remaining loyal followers to pay more than what you can give back." Because in my eyes they have finally become what their critics have said for decades. A washed up act hiding behind costumes. To that end, I now have to agree. Don't get up on stage, if you can't do it anymore. In my eyes, KISS is gone. And seeing this incarnation is painfully embarrassing. I'm not blaming Paul Stanley for being 60 and still wanting to do it. The question is, SHOULD he be doing it and charging a big ticket price for fans to watch a reduced performance? There's a reason why they can't play in big arenas anymore. And there's a reason why they now have to pair up with the Crue just play in Amphitheaters. So their market share is pretty limited. And as a fan this is not the way I envisioned them going out. It's very sad.

Well, all aspects of Smith's "demand & supply" principle are useful to understand the problem you're addressing. Of course I think you make some interesting points, but Gene and Paul are free to sell whatever they want, at whatever the prices people want to pay. So what's the reason for them to keep playing, and keep using the costumes that don't fit them as good as back in good old 1977? Just because there's people out there willing to pay. You can't fight them. They are still there. They want to pay $200 or maybe $20000 just to be near and get to see them playing. And all this never quite as good as back in the 70's, of course.

And what can be said about other bands, and high-minded rock critics? To my eyes (and ears) Gene, Paul, and the boys, they have nothing to prove. Listen to the old albums. The legend is all there! I'm sure historians of the Western Civilization will mention KISS in the centuries to come when talking about American pop culture. Do you really believe anybody will remember who Geddy Lee was (incredible player that he is) in the centuries to come?

Paul, Gene, and the boys are musicians and showmen. That's what they did to earn their lives since they were kids. Again, you can't expect them to have the same qualities of a young rock and roller when in their sixties, and I honestly doubt they will go for a rocking chair instead of a guitar as long as they can still play. They can do as they want. And fortunately people is still free to choose. If their show is not as good as the ones from the 70's, then keep listening to their old LPs.

[megomania]

I guess the question has to be asked here. What is the expectation? And how far do you let it go? At this stage, I think they sell better out of makeup than in it. For better or worse, the makeup is a gimmick. So when does the esthetic lose it's luster? Are you seeing it as it is or through fan glasses? Because I've been a fan since the 70's and attended KISS concerts in every era. But I would not pay a dime to see them today. Gene is fat. Stanley has lost his voice and is wearing a BAD wig. And I've seen better impersonators of Ace and Peter in KISS cover bands. So what is the draw? How can I, as a long time fan, justify good money for an experience that can not remotely match past performances from just ten years ago? Do you realize they are charging $1,400.00 just to meet them now? That's insane! I've met most of these guys during their best years and never paid a dime for the experience. So they are really sticking it to fans who close their eyes and follow the same old sales pitch. I think my skepticism is pretty realistic and grounded.

Paul McCartney could get the sons from his deceased band members and tour as the Beatles. Does that mean it's the Beatles? No. I liked everything KISS did up to Psycho Circus. Personally I think they should have retired as sold on the Farewell Tour. It was the original band, they looked and played well, and gave a memorable performance. It would have been an ideal exit for them. So, from my perspective, if you still want to see them in whatever guise they sell themselves in, that's great. But to the band I would say this... "Please don't ask the remaining loyal followers to pay more than what you can give back." Because in my eyes they have finally become what their critics have said for decades. A washed up act hiding behind costumes. To that end, I now have to agree. Don't get up on stage, if you can't do it anymore. In my eyes, KISS is gone. And seeing this incarnation is painfully embarrassing. I'm not blaming Paul Stanley for being 60 and still wanting to do it. The question is, SHOULD he be doing it and charging a big ticket price for fans to watch a reduced performance? There's a reason why they can't play in big arenas anymore. And there's a reason why they now have to pair up with the Crue just play in Amphitheaters. So their market share is pretty limited. And as a fan this is not the way I envisioned them going out. It's very sad.

Very well said but no one is holding a gun to these peoples heads who pay outrageous prices to hear them and/or meet them. As long as people will pay KISS will continue to play.

I paid ~$200 per ticket in 2009 (maybe 2010) to see them at Key Arena...it wasn't worth it to me after the fact less so because of the 'performance' but more so because I just can't get past no Ace or Peter.

-Chris

[GlobalObserver]

As far as I'm concerned, KISS is little more than a tribute band/corporate branding machine nowadays.

I pretty much lost all respect for Paul and Gene when they started dressing up Tommy and Eric as Ace and Peter. For me, that was the final straw.

I listen to the new RUSH album, and it's Amazing. Those guys have been around for as long as KISS, yet they continue to make awe-inspiring music. I've listened to Clockwork Angels at least a dozen times in the past couple of days, and it's absolutely brilliant.

I still treasure my childhood memories of KISS. I became a fan during the summer of 1976. Those guys were Gods to me back then, but for the past three decades, Gene & Paul have done everything in their power to diminish that legacy by becoming everything that their detractors always said they were.

It didn't have to be that way. By their own design, Gene and Paul pimped away every ounce of integrity that they once had. It's a shame.

[MIB41]

I'm a huge KISS fan, and I appreciate all of past the members. They're like family to me. I just wanted to point something out that I can see you're not addressing with the perspectives that have been presented here in this thread. These guys, Ace, Gene, Peter, Paul, are all in their 60's. I can not understand why some of you expect them to sound, act, and perform as good as when they were in their mid 20's. I mean, none of us are any better as we got old, physically, mentally, etc. Think of music as sports. Jimmy Connors is probably the best tennis player of all time, but by the end of the 80's he stopped playing his usual level. That, my friends, is getting old. Just like that. Think of any other band of the very good old days. Are they having huge hits, rocking onstage, or having the same energy or vibes of the 70's? Saying this, and acknowledging I will always love everything these guys do, I enjoy their music and shows, and try to keep things in perspective.

You all have a good Thursday, and keep rocking with KISS, the hottest band in the land!!!

I guess the question has to be asked here. What is the expectation? And how far do you let it go? At this stage, I think they sell better out of makeup than in it. For better or worse, the makeup is a gimmick. So when does the esthetic lose it's luster? Are you seeing it as it is or through fan glasses? Because I've been a fan since the 70's and attended KISS concerts in every era. But I would not pay a dime to see them today. Gene is fat. Stanley has lost his voice and is wearing a BAD wig. And I've seen better impersonators of Ace and Peter in KISS cover bands. So what is the draw? How can I, as a long time fan, justify good money for an experience that can not remotely match past performances from just ten years ago? Do you realize they are charging $1,400.00 just to meet them now? That's insane! I've met most of these guys during their best years and never paid a dime for the experience. So they are really sticking it to fans who close their eyes and follow the same old sales pitch. I think my skepticism is pretty realistic and grounded.

Paul McCartney could get the sons from his deceased band members and tour as the Beatles. Does that mean it's the Beatles? No. I liked everything KISS did up to Psycho Circus. Personally I think they should have retired as sold on the Farewell Tour. It was the original band, they looked and played well, and gave a memorable performance. It would have been an ideal exit for them. So, from my perspective, if you still want to see them in whatever guise they sell themselves in, that's great. But to the band I would say this... "Please don't ask the remaining loyal followers to pay more than what you can give back." Because in my eyes they have finally become what their critics have said for decades. A washed up act hiding behind costumes. To that end, I now have to agree. Don't get up on stage, if you can't do it anymore. In my eyes, KISS is gone. And seeing this incarnation is painfully embarrassing. I'm not blaming Paul Stanley for being 60 and still wanting to do it. The question is, SHOULD he be doing it and charging a big ticket price for fans to watch a reduced performance? There's a reason why they can't play in big arenas anymore. And there's a reason why they now have to pair up with the Crue just play in Amphitheaters. So their market share is pretty limited. And as a fan this is not the way I envisioned them going out. It's very sad.

[huedell]

I'm not saying that what both Tommy Thayer ot Eric Singer bring to the stage isn't worthy of applause but they aren't innovators like the previous lineups (this of course includes, Eric Carr, Vinnie Vincent, Mark St. John and ESPECIALLY Bruce Kulick).

I find this perspective odd, considering Vinnie Vincent's songwriting
involvement and playing represent the most successful post-makeup
KISS material, and thus defines KISS after the departure of Ace and Peter.
... pretty innovative acievements.

Eric didn't write as much as Vinnie, but was a member for essentially
all the non-makeup era and defined a modern hard rock drum sound
for a harder rock era than Peter's KISS tenure.... the definition of innovative
in some respects.

Kulick was a lead guitarist in KISS... for a long time... and STILL
couldn't bring a notable presence to the table until the Revenge-era...
whether he was allowed to or not throughout...well, that's debatable.

[Mongoose1983]

I'm a huge KISS fan, and I appreciate all of past the members. They're like family to me. I just wanted to point something out that I can see you're not addressing with the perspectives that have been presented here in this thread. These guys, Ace, Gene, Peter, Paul, are all in their 60's. I can not understand why some of you expect them to sound, act, and perform as good as when they were in their mid 20's. I mean, none of us are any better as we got old, physically, mentally, etc. Think of music as sports. Jimmy Connors is probably the best tennis player of all time, but by the end of the 80's he stopped playing his usual level. That, my friends, is getting old. Just like that. Think of any other band of the very good old days. Are they having huge hits, rocking onstage, or having the same energy or vibes of the 70's? Saying this, and acknowledging I will always love everything these guys do, I enjoy their music and shows, and try to keep things in perspective.

You all have a good Thursday, and keep rocking with KISS, the hottest band in the land!!!

[MIB41]

From my perspective, KISS is more about brand, and less about band these days. Let's be honest. We're talking about Paul and Gene approaching 60 years of age and singing tunes about Rock n' Rolling all "nite". The old tag lines are still there, but the life styles are more as domesticated family men and less about partying. You see the logo on candy, cups, toys, and the band in ads for Pepsi and Walmart. Their manager, Doc Mcgee, makes "events" out of the band performing at local carnivals and playing live on boat cruises. So I think the old days of KISS being tied to album sales and big tours to define their validity are behind them.

Their last album, Sonic Boom (a Walmart exclusive), is one of their worst selling studio records of all time. Even below the infamous Elder in album sales, posting less than 500,000 copies, meaning it didn't even receive gold certification. Now to listen to the band talk, you might think it did pretty good. They even released a TERRIBLE commercial promoting both Walmart and the record. The album debuted at number two on a very slow week for new releases. That is the highest charting record they have ever had. But it also dropped out of the top 200 in a month's time, making it one of their biggest flops as well. Eric and Tommy played on that record and even sang lead vocals, which were fine, but nothing notable.

As musicians, Tommy and Eric are quite good. Eric Singer has an illustrious past, building his reputation initially with Alice Cooper, long before KISS came along. Tommy does not share similar roots, but has been a reputable session player for a long time. He's good. But watching him play Ace's guitar riffs certainly reveals a difference in style that does not serve those songs well. That doesn't mean he isn't good or doesn't possess his own strengths that Ace doesn't have. He just doesn't possess the same "feel" for those notes as Ace does when he plays them. But I'm also sure he is playing those notes as instructed by Paul and Gene. Make no mistake. So Dark Shadow is most certainly correct in pointing out, they are limited in their roles. More of a reason to go back to my original point that KISS is more a 'brand' than 'band' these days.

I think you just have to enjoy them for what they are. But more importantly what they use to be. Because let's face it. When Paul has to put on a wig and as much make up as I would to play the role, you know it's time to start thinking about retirement. And to my last point... that makeup does not cover their age anymore. Paul and Gene both look like elder statesmen in their gear these days, which carries it's own shock value. But for different reasons than the 70's.

[jimsmegos]

Is it your opinion that Tommy & Eric are incapable of being innovative, or could it be that they are simply not permitted the opportunity to bring anything extraordinarily new to the table?

Not allowed... In my previous comments I'm not cracking on their musical abilities at all. KISS is a machine and a brand. And I don't mean that in a bad way. Gene and Paul have developed / evolved / crafted the show in a way that is absolutely guaranteed to please the audience. Nothing wrong with that. Just like a Broadway production. But that's not a live rock show IMO.

My point when it comes to the specialness of the original 4 is that without their ground work this tried and true presentation wouldn't exist. When it comes to the band as a whole sure I have my favorites but when it comes to the band as a unit I don't let those personality favoritism's influence my judgement on the music. Example's:

the Vinnie Vincent years did nothing for me. This first incarnation of the band post Ace seemed as if they had lost their sound but working hard to find it. They just never did.

The Crazy Night's show was the most boring thing I have ever seen.

Hot in the Shade however made up for the aforementioned one. KISS was really in their groove. Eric Carr was also amazing during his solo.

The reunion tour was great. First time I got to see the four together live. The bad part for me however was that I had seen and heard this show a hundreds of times on video, television etc... I understand that's just what it is but outside of the nostalgia aspect there was nothing super special about it. Mind you I did party my posterior off that night, I just didn't watch the show that much.

The Psycho Circus stuff was a good attempt at trying to build off of the 70's superhero aspect of the band but IMO it fell flat.

Since then I haven't heard anything new. It may be out there but I'm not aware of it.

So to set the record straight, I think Tommy and Eric could infuse some life into KISS but I don't think Paul or Gene have any desire to do so ot need to. The fans don't seem to mind so who can blame them?