Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/74?

The broadest possible category for KISS discussion. Everything to do with KISS and its members, past and present. Posts offering bootleg, pirate, or illegal items, or links to those items, will be deleted. Please refer to the Terms Of Service (TOS) for this site for maximum board experience. Should any post contain material that violates your copyright, please follow the instructions on the DMCA takedown notice page.
User avatar
Phyllis Simmons
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:50 am

Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/74?

Post by Phyllis Simmons »

Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/74?

Ive been listening to the Daisy show, and Peters on mic a lot in between song banter etc. And the '73 Loft rehearsal that's emerged; its Peter really directing the session - giving Ace instruction; talking of song structure, talking about parts/ breakdowns etc. Paul and Gene are hardly on mic at all. Peter seems really upbeat and directing/ guiding the session. Theres a pattern emerging on some of these very early gems. Peter is really at the forefront. A very enjoyable listen!
User avatar
Strutter67
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10040
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Strutter67 »

Nope
User avatar
B5Erik
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 15714
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: www.VistaRecords.us & Vista Records Radio on YouTube

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by B5Erik »

No.
User avatar
mikeenc
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 3101
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by mikeenc »

Ha...that made me laugh. Peter was never the leader of anything except the club for really lucky people who still have the nerve to complain about everything.
User avatar
strutter78
Super Elite KISS Fan
Super Elite KISS Fan
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:25 am
Location: Birmingham, Al

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by strutter78 »

Yes he was unofficially. He was older and sung most of the songs in some of his other bands. I've always read that Peter was the main spokesman love for Kiss. I was never sure about that and never thought I'd hear a Daisy or rehearsal from the loft. It took 40 years for me to hear it and there is Peter yelling about feedback, talking to the Horny Bitches or asking the big titty bitches to dance or the primal scream Rockin Fkn Roll!!!! They had to reel him in with Paul "wanna boogie" Stanley who was already up front, less crude, and a better looking guy. Peter was more passionate, but less refined, I believe when they took that role away from him that caused one of the major divides in the band.
User avatar
Man of a Thousand Aces
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5376
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:09 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Man of a Thousand Aces »

Peter had the most experience in the band, so, yeah, I think he did exhibit himself as kind of a leader. That's apparent when you watch the earliest performances.
User avatar
B5Erik
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 15714
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: www.VistaRecords.us & Vista Records Radio on YouTube

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by B5Erik »

Peter had the biggest mouth in the early days and wouldn't shut up. That didn't make him a, "Leader," or spokesman for the band on stage.
User avatar
pallmall2
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2898
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:21 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by pallmall2 »

:lol: Unofficial leader, now that's funny. Yes it was his constant and proficient songwriting along with his focus and direction that made him the unofficial leader. :lol:
User avatar
Fasterpdiddy
2,000 Man, baby!
2,000 Man, baby!
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:03 am
Location: New York

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Fasterpdiddy »

Yes and there's enough recordings and evidence to support it. That dynamic was changed once Aucoin put the focus on Paul as the frontman/voice.
User avatar
Ace The Plumber
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2911
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:41 am
Location: texas

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Ace The Plumber »

Peter was the leader in his own mind
User avatar
carlos
2,000 Man, baby!
2,000 Man, baby!
Posts: 2027
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Kingsville, Ontario, Canada

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by carlos »

To hear Peter and Ace explain it, in the beginning it was all for one, one for all with each guy having an equal say. For a time line, I'd say for about a year and a half. Then I'd assume as the band started making bigger decisions it became obvious who the leaders were. Simply by using their intellect and articulating their opinion, Gene and Paul were able to gravitate to the forefront as the band morphed into a business. This developed over the next 2 years, leaving Peter feeling squeezed out. Then "Beth" happened and it fueled his frustration and gave him leverage, (in his mind at least). But the band exploded and the money, drugs, women and fame were abundant. Peter rode the wave, but remained bitter that things never went back to the original agreement. Within 3 more years he had enough. And basically the band's career has always been overshadowed by their own success between 1976-1979.

I was surprised to hear how much Peter addressed the crowd early on. As mentioned, he was the most experienced, even though he was crass. That was Rock and Roll to him. Cue the daggers, naked girls and bondage. It was a gang mentality originally. When the focus changed for greater appeal, I believe Peter never got over it. In a way, that's when the original integrity was compromised.

Part of the problem was that the new formula was massively successful, so there was no chance of returning to the original plan. I believe the plan was to take on the world and become the biggest band on the planet on their own terms. Paul and Gene were more interested in being a success. Peter wanted to stay true to their pact. In essence, the "do anything to make it" mantra also included abandoning the "brotherhood" aspect in favor of "making it". That never jived with Peter, and to a lesser degree, Ace. I respect Peter for that. In many ways, I don't blame him for remaining a disgruntled employee, because it was never supposed to be that way. But post- reunion, he knew exactly what he was signing up for, so those complaints aren't valid. If he didn't like the contract, he shouldn't have signed. And since he did sign, he has no right to complain.
User avatar
Strutter67
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10040
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Strutter67 »

carlos wrote:To hear Peter and Ace explain it, in the beginning it was all for one, one for all with each guy having an equal say. For a time line, I'd say for about a year and a half. Then I'd assume as the band started making bigger decisions it became obvious who the leaders were. Simply by using their intellect and articulating their opinion, Gene and Paul were able to gravitate to the forefront as the band morphed into a business. This developed over the next 2 years, leaving Peter feeling squeezed out. Then "Beth" happened and it fueled his frustration and gave him leverage, (in his mind at least). But the band exploded and the money, drugs, women and fame were abundant. Peter rode the wave, but remained bitter that things never went back to the original agreement. Within 3 more years he had enough. And basically the band's career has always been overshadowed by their own success between 1976-1979.

I was surprised to hear how much Peter addressed the crowd early on. As mentioned, he was the most experienced, even though he was crass. That was Rock and Roll to him. Cue the daggers, naked girls and bondage. It was a gang mentality originally. When the focus changed for greater appeal, I believe Peter never got over it. In a way, that's when the original integrity was compromised.

Part of the problem was that the new formula was massively successful, so there was no chance of returning to the original plan. I believe the plan was to take on the world and become the biggest band on the planet on their own terms. Paul and Gene were more interested in being a success. Peter wanted to stay true to their pact. In essence, the "do anything to make it" mantra also included abandoning the "brotherhood" aspect in favor of "making it". That never jived with Peter, and to a lesser degree, Ace. I respect Peter for that. In many ways, I don't blame him for remaining a disgruntled employee, because it was never supposed to be that way. But post- reunion, he knew exactly what he was signing up for, so those complaints aren't valid. If he didn't like the contract, he shouldn't have signed. And since he did sign, he has no right to complain.


Some of what you say makes sense but things didn't change that much in the next 2 years. Peter got to sing songs, just not his songs, Ace was encouraged to sing but refused. They were still a band through DTK. But DTK was done so quickly it opened the door for Paul's songwriting and he stood out on that album, 5 songs and only 3 on each of the first 2 albums. I think that's when things started to change and Ezrin took that and ran with it. But then had issues with Peter and Ace and that's when the cracks started in the foundation.
User avatar
KISS_BLOOD
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:49 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by KISS_BLOOD »

Yes, Gene has even stated Peter was more of the leader in the beginning.He was street smart, cool and more experienced.
User avatar
kissjrj
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10355
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Shout Mercy!!!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by kissjrj »

Why didn't Peter volunteer to sit in with Mike Douglas?
User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

As one poster said earlier, probably a lot of Peter's attitude came from Paul being handed the reins to be the front man.

Paul and or Gene said once that no one could understand what Peter said because of his thick accent- they're all from NY so not sure why Peter's would be any heavier or thicker than Gene or Paul's.

I think Peter was just plain crass and Bill decided that that wouldn't work for a front man.
User avatar
Man of a Thousand Aces
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5376
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:09 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Man of a Thousand Aces »

B5Erik wrote:Peter had the biggest mouth in the early days and wouldn't shut up. That didn't make him a, "Leader," or spokesman for the band on stage.
And here we go again... :roll:
User avatar
Kisstanbul
Trained by Tommy!
Trained by Tommy!
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:10 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Kisstanbul »

Yes he was.
sicksickphil
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5142
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:57 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by sicksickphil »

PitViper wrote:As one poster said earlier, probably a lot of Peter's attitude came from Paul being handed the reins to be the front man.

Paul and or Gene said once that no one could understand what Peter said because of his thick accent- they're all from NY so not sure why Peter's would be any heavier or thicker than Gene or Paul's.

I think Peter was just plain crass and Bill decided that that wouldn't work for a front man.
Gene wasn't from new york. Also, you can be from the same area and have different accents.
User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

sicksickphil wrote:
PitViper wrote:As one poster said earlier, probably a lot of Peter's attitude came from Paul being handed the reins to be the front man.

Paul and or Gene said once that no one could understand what Peter said because of his thick accent- they're all from NY so not sure why Peter's would be any heavier or thicker than Gene or Paul's.

I think Peter was just plain crass and Bill decided that that wouldn't work for a front man.
Gene wasn't from new york. Also, you can be from the same area and have different accents.
Gene grew up and spent his formative years in NY so I'm sure at some point he must've inherently picked up some accent.
User avatar
HotterThanHeck
Super Elite KISS Fan
Super Elite KISS Fan
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:45 am
Location: Deveraux's Hideout

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by HotterThanHeck »

I would say that they relied on his prior experience, yes. As another poster said, Gene himself alluded to this previously.

Peter the leader? I dunno about that shit. Influential and helpful? Most certainly.
User avatar
sagafoo
Trained by Tommy!
Trained by Tommy!
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:15 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by sagafoo »

Umm, no.

But im sure like most drummers he was very full of energy and not afraid to talk to the fans, but I dont think peter was ever the leader, it was very clearly G&P's band.
Certainly onstage, i understand why he was more vocal.
When I was first playing in a certain band, I remember playing gigs, where our singer/guitar players would barely acknowledge the audience so I started setting up a mike and doing some intros, and generally trying to be involved, eventually the other guys took over,as they should, much like KISS.
User avatar
That 70s Guy
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by That 70s Guy »

No
User avatar
Namrag
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1564
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:40 am
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Namrag »

pallmall2 wrote::lol: Unofficial leader, now that's funny. Yes it was his constant and proficient songwriting along with his focus and direction that made him the unofficial leader. :lol:
:salut: :salut: :salut:
User avatar
StudioMogul
Full KISS Army Member
Full KISS Army Member
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:04 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by StudioMogul »

Yes, Peter was a leader. He was the first member married, he was the first to complain, the first to threaten to quit the band and the first to actually quit. Fantastic leader.
User avatar
Phyllis Simmons
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Phyllis Simmons »

kissjrj wrote:Why didn't Peter volunteer to sit in with Mike Douglas?
Because he would've asked how all "the horny old bitches" in the front row were doing out there! "Ya'll big titted grey haired mammas, we wanna fuck you!' Wouldn't have been good for the daytime sect.

Best they left it to Gene to talk about nibbling on cheeks and necks... :P
User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

Phyllis Simmons wrote:
kissjrj wrote:Why didn't Peter volunteer to sit in with Mike Douglas?
Because he would've asked how all "the horny old bitches" in the front row were doing out there! "Ya'll big titted grey haired mammas, we wanna fuck you!' Wouldn't have been good for the daytime sect.

Best they left it to Gene to talk about nibbling on cheeks and necks... :P
Gene sitting there in his makeup, trying to talk and act like a Rhoades Scholar.... he tried to sound so sophisticated. I laugh when I hear him on old interviews.

In fact that hasn't changed much today when he's being interviewed.
User avatar
Phyllis Simmons
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Phyllis Simmons »

KISS_BLOOD wrote:Yes, Gene has even stated Peter was more of the leader in the beginning.He was street smart, cool and more experienced.
Yeah that's more what I'm talking about. Not from the creative decisions, songwriting etc that was mainly Gene and Paul of course.. But because he was older, more experienced on the live scene, he had a swagger and a big personality, so more the dominant personality type in the group. Cool bit in Loft rehearsal from Pete to the effect of - "Yo Frehley you better fuckin nail this one now man."

Peter was clearly psyched about this project he had joined, no question, just listen to the enthusiasm bursting through at Daisy and Loft rehearsal, and also Coventry video gig.

I agree with another poster; it was probably Aucoin who reined it in to have main focus on Paul as frontman and mc.
User avatar
balish
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 7072
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:36 pm
Location: JAPAN

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by balish »

Maybe he had the qualities required for a 30-40 people crowd.
Once things got professional, he obviously had to keep, or be kept, quiet.
User avatar
kissjrj
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 10355
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Shout Mercy!!!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by kissjrj »

Phyllis Simmons wrote:
kissjrj wrote:Why didn't Peter volunteer to sit in with Mike Douglas?
Because he would've asked how all "the horny old bitches" in the front row were doing out there! "Ya'll big titted grey haired mammas, we wanna fuck you!' Wouldn't have been good for the daytime sect.

Best they left it to Gene to talk about nibbling on cheeks and necks... :P
Fields would have cracked Peter across the mouth. :lol:
User avatar
bobrod
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 6152
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: New Jersey by way of Jendell

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by bobrod »

I kinda remember this topic being mentioned in the first Kisstory book.
rockindawg
Trained by Tommy!
Trained by Tommy!
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:34 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by rockindawg »

the only drummer that i can think of that had a ton of contact with the crowds in concert was the drummer from TRIUMPH Gil Moore

he sang many of the songs and also shared with interacting with the crowds
User avatar
ACESTATION
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 2996
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:15 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by ACESTATION »

carlos wrote:
Part of the problem was that the new formula was massively successful, so there was no chance of returning to the original plan. I believe the plan was to take on the world and become the biggest band on the planet on their own terms. Paul and Gene were more interested in being a success. Peter wanted to stay true to their pact. In essence, the "do anything to make it" mantra also included abandoning the "brotherhood" aspect in favor of "making it". That never jived with Peter, and to a lesser degree, Ace. I respect Peter for that. In many ways, I don't blame him for remaining a disgruntled employee, because it was never supposed to be that way. But post- reunion, he knew exactly what he was signing up for, so those complaints aren't valid. If he didn't like the contract, he shouldn't have signed. And since he did sign, he has no right to complain.
Agree. Only a knucklehead would be upset over something like that. If you wanted success and you got it then don't complain. It's a business.
User avatar
Phyllis Simmons
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Phyllis Simmons »

kissjrj wrote:
Phyllis Simmons wrote:
kissjrj wrote:Why didn't Peter volunteer to sit in with Mike Douglas?
Because he would've asked how all "the horny old bitches" in the front row were doing out there! "Ya'll big titted grey haired mammas, we wanna fuck you!' Wouldn't have been good for the daytime sect.

Best they left it to Gene to talk about nibbling on cheeks and necks... :P
Fields would have cracked Peter across the mouth. :lol:
"He's not a Cat; Mike? He's a filthy, foul mouthed punk from Brooklyn, who barely avoided jail"
User avatar
B5Erik
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 15714
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: www.VistaRecords.us & Vista Records Radio on YouTube

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by B5Erik »

Man of a Thousand Aces wrote:
B5Erik wrote:Peter had the biggest mouth in the early days and wouldn't shut up. That didn't make him a, "Leader," or spokesman for the band on stage.
And here we go again... :roll:
Well, come on - the guy was a malcontent from the start. You can't be a leader when you're constantly whining about things and threatening to quit the band. That's what he did. That's the way it was. I'm not making stuff up just to slam him. I'm just bringing that stuff up to debunk the notion that he was any kind of a real, "Leader," in the band.

I'm sorry if pointing out facts like that bothers you. That's not my intent.

Leaders don't make demands and bitch and moan, they offer solutions or better options. Peter did the former, not the latter.
CominHome
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 4473
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:34 pm
Location: Montucky

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by CominHome »

B5Erik wrote: Peter did the former, not the latter.
Sure in the end, but how do you know it was like that in 73/74 ? You don't and neither do I. As much speaking as he did from behind the kit in those early days (as much if not more than the others) assuming the role and being labeled it are two very different things. I figured if you have played in bands, that would be a given in the understanding department. Or not ?
User avatar
B5Erik
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 15714
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: www.VistaRecords.us & Vista Records Radio on YouTube

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by B5Erik »

CominHome wrote:
B5Erik wrote: Peter did the former, not the latter.
Sure in the end, but how do you know it was like that in 73/74 ? You don't and neither do I.
Yes, we do. It has been well documented that as early as 1973 Peter threatened to quit the band and could only be placated with a limo to the current gig. His whining, complaining, and threatening to quit has been documented by multiple people as starting in 1973 after only about three months in the band.
As much speaking as he did from behind the kit in those early days (as much if not more than the others) assuming the role and being labeled it are two very different things. I figured if you have played in bands, that would be a given in the understanding department. Or not ?
Peter talking between songs in 1973 was the same as Ace Frehley starting songs in the medley jam in 2001. Neither one of them was the, "Leader," of the band, but neither one of them could be stopped when they wanted to do something. It took a Bill Aucoin lecture to shut Peter up on stage in late '73.

As for my own bands, I was, indeed, the band, "Leader," early on (picking cover songs, writing originals), but within six months of forming my last band my brother (bass) and my guitar player exerted their musical direction and the band became a democracy with them writing the bulk of the original material from that point forward. But my leadership role was based on song selection, songwriting, and scheduling (I'd plan and schedule our rehearsals and then ran the rehearsals). Peter never did any of that from everything that has been documented. Even he hasn't made claims that he did any of that.
CominHome
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 4473
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:34 pm
Location: Montucky

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by CominHome »

B5Erik wrote:
CominHome wrote:
B5Erik wrote: Peter did the former, not the latter.
Sure in the end, but how do you know it was like that in 73/74 ? You don't and neither do I.
Yes, we do. It has been well documented that as early as 1973 Peter threatened to quit the band and could only be placated with a limo to the current gig. His whining, complaining, and threatening to quit has been documented by multiple people as starting in 1973 after only about three months in the band.
As much speaking as he did from behind the kit in those early days (as much if not more than the others) assuming the role and being labeled it are two very different things. I figured if you have played in bands, that would be a given in the understanding department. Or not ?
Peter talking between songs in 1973 was the same as Ace Frehley starting songs in the medley jam in 2001. Neither one of them was the, "Leader," of the band, but neither one of them could be stopped when they wanted to do something. It took a Bill Aucoin lecture to shut Peter up on stage in late '73.

As for my own bands, I was, indeed, the band, "Leader," early on (picking cover songs, writing originals), but within six months of forming my last band my brother (bass) and my guitar player exerted their musical direction and the band became a democracy with them writing the bulk of the original material from that point forward. But my leadership role was based on song selection, songwriting, and scheduling (I'd plan and schedule our rehearsals and then ran the rehearsals). Peter never did any of that from everything that has been documented. Even he hasn't made claims that he did any of that.
So I was mistaken about his complaining from early on. No big deal, not the first time nor the last. You totally missed my point about "assuming" the role of leader onstage as opposed to actually being it behind the scenes or officially labeled as such. There is a difference. When I read the context of the thread title, that is what I derive from it. Peter assuming that role onstage and nothing to do with business decisions. It is well documented that decisions were made cohesively as a foursome, for the most part. So wouldn't that make them all leaders in some capacity or another. Perspective is everything
User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

B5Erik wrote:
Man of a Thousand Aces wrote:
B5Erik wrote:Peter had the biggest mouth in the early days and wouldn't shut up. That didn't make him a, "Leader," or spokesman for the band on stage.
And here we go again... :roll:
Well, come on - the guy was a malcontent from the start. You can't be a leader when you're constantly whining about things and threatening to quit the band. That's what he did. That's the way it was. I'm not making stuff up just to slam him. I'm just bringing that stuff up to debunk the notion that he was any kind of a real, "Leader," in the band.

I'm sorry if pointing out facts like that bothers you. That's not my intent.

Leaders don't make demands and bitch and moan, they offer solutions or better options. Peter did the former, not the latter.
I see all the armchair psychologists are out making their best 'assumptions' about Peter again.

Poor man doesn't get any rest or respect on this board.
User avatar
mistermike40
Trained by Tommy!
Trained by Tommy!
Posts: 935
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:55 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by mistermike40 »

kissjrj wrote:Why didn't Peter volunteer to sit in with Mike Douglas?
After reading the books and listening to the Daisy show, I wondered this myself.
User avatar
Namrag
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1564
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:40 am
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Namrag »

PitViper wrote:
B5Erik wrote:
Man of a Thousand Aces wrote:
B5Erik wrote:Peter had the biggest mouth in the early days and wouldn't shut up. That didn't make him a, "Leader," or spokesman for the band on stage.
And here we go again... :roll:
Well, come on - the guy was a malcontent from the start. You can't be a leader when you're constantly whining about things and threatening to quit the band. That's what he did. That's the way it was. I'm not making stuff up just to slam him. I'm just bringing that stuff up to debunk the notion that he was any kind of a real, "Leader," in the band.

I'm sorry if pointing out facts like that bothers you. That's not my intent.

Leaders don't make demands and bitch and moan, they offer solutions or better options. Peter did the former, not the latter.
I see all the armchair psychologists are out making their best 'assumptions' about Peter again.

Poor man doesn't get any rest or respect on this board.
You always make it sound like everyone is picking on Peter unfairly when recounting how he WAS.

No offense, but it comes off the same as when Peter was complaining in his book about Paul and Gene talking about his drug and alcohol use and how he didn't like it because his daughter would see it. It wasn't Paul and Genes fault that he did all of that, but yet he blamed them for talking about it.

If you don't want people to talk crap about you, then maybe you shouldn't do crappy stuff.
User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

Namrag wrote:
PitViper wrote:
B5Erik wrote:
Man of a Thousand Aces wrote:
B5Erik wrote:Peter had the biggest mouth in the early days and wouldn't shut up. That didn't make him a, "Leader," or spokesman for the band on stage.
And here we go again... :roll:
Well, come on - the guy was a malcontent from the start. You can't be a leader when you're constantly whining about things and threatening to quit the band. That's what he did. That's the way it was. I'm not making stuff up just to slam him. I'm just bringing that stuff up to debunk the notion that he was any kind of a real, "Leader," in the band.

I'm sorry if pointing out facts like that bothers you. That's not my intent.

Leaders don't make demands and bitch and moan, they offer solutions or better options. Peter did the former, not the latter.
I see all the armchair psychologists are out making their best 'assumptions' about Peter again.

Poor man doesn't get any rest or respect on this board.
You always make it sound like everyone is picking on Peter unfairly when recounting how he WAS.

No offense, but it comes off the same as when Peter was complaining in his book about Paul and Gene talking about his drug and alcohol use and how he didn't like it because his daughter would see it. It wasn't Paul and Genes fault that he did all of that, but yet he blamed them for talking about it.

If you don't want people to talk crap about you, then maybe you shouldn't do crappy stuff.
Well it's sort of like bullying and maybe should stop. Nah, that'll never happen here.

Gene and Paul shouldn't have been talking about Peter's issues with his daughter around. The Unplugged Reunion should've been about the good old days. Why should Gene and Paul bring up his vices on that day? It's like constantly reminding someone that they're ugly or short or whatever. When does it stop?

Gene and Paul are no angels either. Gene and his 4,000 conquests- cheating on his long term partner/mother of his children- he thinks because he's never taken drugs or drink that he's above it all, but you know what? I'm not for abusing your body with foreign substances but he's had his dipstick in enough holes that that right there gives him NO free pass to criticize anyone else's issues.


For the most part, Peter's 'issues' that everyone on this board thinks they're intimately acquainted with, are nothing more than 'something someone else has said' or 'someone's interpretation of a book they've read'.

I would never say Peter isn't guilty of wrong doing and poor behavior, but I think a lot of you and a lot of fans out there in general take what Gene and Paul say as the gospel truth. Peter laid himself out in his book, he was no saint, but through my eyes, he took blame for it too. There is no one here on this board or elsewhere, if you've had a hard time with life, made mistakes, that while you may be the biggest man/woman in the world and admit fault, no one anywhere will totally admit that problems are strictly their fault- any human being has the tendency to pin 'some' blame on others, or other situations that took part in their life.

It's just human nature.

How many of you here who have been screwed up now or in the past will take COMPLETE AND TOTAL ABSOLUTION for your mistakes or misfortunes in life? I want to know, so pony up everyone.

If everyone here takes complete BLAME for mistakes, misfortunes or problems in life... well then, this board is the Holy Grail of perfect personalities.
User avatar
KeepItSimpleStupid
Super Elite KISS Fan
Super Elite KISS Fan
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by KeepItSimpleStupid »

I won't go as far as saying he was a "leader". It's clear, in retrospect, that it is and always was Gene and Paul's band. However, in the early gigs mentioned it's clear that Peter's experience playing out live overshadowed Gene and Paul's experience. He was just more comfortable. In fact, even though all of them took time to get their make up dialed in as far as design, it was Peter who always seemed most comfortable in his alter ego from the start. The other members (Gene and Paul especially, IMO) seemed confused about what they were about. Once they got more live experience it was just natural for Paul to take the frontman status. He sang far more songs than Peter and had the least to do, musically and theatrically, on stage.
User avatar
13marcello
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:16 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by 13marcello »

The evidence is there. Sheesh
User avatar
Fat Ace
Banned
Banned
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Fat Ace »

Phyllis Simmons wrote:Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/74?

Ive been listening to the Daisy show, and Peters on mic a lot in between song banter etc. And the '73 Loft rehearsal that's emerged; its Peter really directing the session - giving Ace instruction; talking of song structure, talking about parts/ breakdowns etc. Paul and Gene are hardly on mic at all. Peter seems really upbeat and directing/ guiding the session. Theres a pattern emerging on some of these very early gems. Peter is really at the forefront. A very enjoyable listen!
No, but Pete may have thought so!
User avatar
B5Erik
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 15714
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: www.VistaRecords.us & Vista Records Radio on YouTube

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by B5Erik »

PitViper wrote: There is no one here on this board or elsewhere, if you've had a hard time with life, made mistakes, that while you may be the biggest man/woman in the world and admit fault, no one anywhere will totally admit that problems are strictly their fault- any human being has the tendency to pin 'some' blame on others, or other situations that took part in their life.
Wrong.

I screwed up and made two huge mistakes that have cost me dearly for more than half my life. I dropped out of college just before I turned 19 and didn't go back until I was 24. Scheduling conflicts between school and work forced me to give up the idea of getting my degree. That initial decision just before I turned 19 has probably cost me well over $100,000 over the last 15 years. Maybe as much as $200,000 - and it's nobody's fault but mine.

And why couldn't I afford to quit a job to get that degree? Because I got married at 20 and racked up bills that had to be paid. Nobody's fault but mine.

If I hadn't done those two things I'd be making at least $17,000 a year more than I do now and I'd have a lot less personal debt. That's all on ME. Nobody made me do those things, I chose poorly. I made unwise, immature decisions.

Peter has never, and will never, take that kind of personal responsibility. Not to that degree. He always says, "I did bad things, but it was only because they were so unfair," etc, etc.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
User avatar
41Mets
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 14582
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:12 pm
Location: B-ACK in the New York Groove!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by 41Mets »

KeepItSimpleStupid wrote:It's clear, in retrospect, that it is and always was Gene and Paul's band.
I will always disagree with that statement. While they have always been the most dedicated and well-rounded members of the band, it wasn't really their band only until 1979/80 or so. Lots of others made significant major contributions to building the Kiss foundation with them, including Ace, Peter, Bill Aucoin, Sean Delaney and Neil Bogart. Gene and Paul came first and always remained standing throughout, but the most important years of Kiss were generated by a team effort, even if Gene and Paul always hit cleanup and sometimes the others struck out. Gene and Paul took orders from management in the 70s, and Ace and Peter didn't always obey Gene and Paul. From Peter's departure on, though, they took on fully everything they learned and made it theirs.
Homer Simpson
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 9337
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Springfield

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Homer Simpson »

PitViper wrote:As one poster said earlier, probably a lot of Peter's attitude came from Paul being handed the reins to be the front man.

Paul and or Gene said once that no one could understand what Peter said because of his thick accent- they're all from NY so not sure why Peter's would be any heavier or thicker than Gene or Paul's.

I think Peter was just plain crass and Bill decided that that wouldn't work for a front man.
I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but I don't know if it was simply because Peter was too "crass" that Paul was chosen as the front man.

Most bands only have one front man, so I think Paul got the role by process of elimination.

I can't think of one band where the drummer is considered the front man (cue FAQ'ers citing about a dozen examples where I'm wrong---but I can't think of any off the top of my head). So that eliminates Peter.
Ace was too aloof and didn't have the personality.
Gene was darker, so him interacting with the crowed would break character.

Paul was the only one left
User avatar
Man of a Thousand Aces
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5376
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:09 pm

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by Man of a Thousand Aces »

B5Erik wrote:
PitViper wrote: There is no one here on this board or elsewhere, if you've had a hard time with life, made mistakes, that while you may be the biggest man/woman in the world and admit fault, no one anywhere will totally admit that problems are strictly their fault- any human being has the tendency to pin 'some' blame on others, or other situations that took part in their life.
Wrong.

Peter has never, and will never, take that kind of personal responsibility. Not to that degree. He always says, "I did bad things, but it was only because they were so unfair," etc, etc.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
:roll: To quote that great philosopher "Chopper":

User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

B5Erik wrote:
PitViper wrote: There is no one here on this board or elsewhere, if you've had a hard time with life, made mistakes, that while you may be the biggest man/woman in the world and admit fault, no one anywhere will totally admit that problems are strictly their fault- any human being has the tendency to pin 'some' blame on others, or other situations that took part in their life.
Wrong.

I screwed up and made two huge mistakes that have cost me dearly for more than half my life. I dropped out of college just before I turned 19 and didn't go back until I was 24. Scheduling conflicts between school and work forced me to give up the idea of getting my degree. That initial decision just before I turned 19 has probably cost me well over $100,000 over the last 15 years. Maybe as much as $200,000 - and it's nobody's fault but mine.

And why couldn't I afford to quit a job to get that degree? Because I got married at 20 and racked up bills that had to be paid. Nobody's fault but mine.

If I hadn't done those two things I'd be making at least $17,000 a year more than I do now and I'd have a lot less personal debt. That's all on ME. Nobody made me do those things, I chose poorly. I made unwise, immature decisions.

Peter has never, and will never, take that kind of personal responsibility. Not to that degree. He always says, "I did bad things, but it was only because they were so unfair," etc, etc.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
That's what gets me about you people here. No one knows PC on a personal basis- yet everyone seems so sure that he has never taken personal responsibility for anything wrong in his life or those it affected. And you all are so SURE of this because.....?
User avatar
PitViper
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 8215
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Under starry skies, where it's Hotter Than Hell!

Re: Was Peter the unofficial leader in the early days? '73/7

Post by PitViper »

Homer Simpson wrote:
PitViper wrote:As one poster said earlier, probably a lot of Peter's attitude came from Paul being handed the reins to be the front man.

Paul and or Gene said once that no one could understand what Peter said because of his thick accent- they're all from NY so not sure why Peter's would be any heavier or thicker than Gene or Paul's.

I think Peter was just plain crass and Bill decided that that wouldn't work for a front man.
I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but I don't know if it was simply because Peter was too "crass" that Paul was chosen as the front man.

Most bands only have one front man, so I think Paul got the role by process of elimination.

I can't think of one band where the drummer is considered the front man (cue FAQ'ers citing about a dozen examples where I'm wrong---but I can't think of any off the top of my head). So that eliminates Peter.
Ace was too aloof and didn't have the personality.
Gene was darker, so him interacting with the crowed would break character.

Paul was the only one left
Exactly. Peter wouldn't have made a good frontman, Peter could talk to his friends and family but probably couldn't relate professionally to a room of strangers... drummers rarely do frontman duties, though it's not unheard of... however that dynamic would work better in a band that played smaller venues. In reality Paul was the only one logically that could be the bands' frontman.