What If Eric Carr Was the Original Drummer

[steve]

Couldn’t stand Carr playing/singing,

Silly post

And I can’t stand Peter’s. What’s your point?

[Nellcote71]

Couldn’t stand Carr playing/singing,

Silly post

And I can’t stand Peter’s. What’s your point?

My point is:

1. I didn’t like think Carr’s style was a good fit for the band
2. It’s a silly post as what if’s like this thread are 110% redundant. It’s beyond being worthy of discussion imo.

Also - if you don’t like Peter’s drumming you ain’t a kiss fan

Thanks

[joma5477]

My point was that a hit in 1990 couldn't change everything the way a hit in 1976 could.

To be fair, full disclosure, I was born a couple weeks after Destroyer's release. My experience of the era is a little foggy... I was all about KISS in '90, though...and while it was cool Forever was on MTV a lot and even local radio a bit, it didn't seem like a game changer for the band to me. Maybe for good reason...but nonetheless, I still don't know that KISS would have been doomed without Beth. My impression is they were well on their way with Alive! and had respectable sales for Destroyer pre-Beth single. I don't think they sold all the next million copies of Destroyer immediately after Beth's release and exclusively because of it. But I could be wrong...we're speculating a lot in this thread.

All the same, Beth, based on the numbers, wasn't an absolute monster of a hit. Why is it played more than Forever today? I think it probably has more to do with KISS being a pretty well known band over all and Beth being their biggest hit released near the peak of their success. Forever? Well, they weren't all that popular of a band at the time to begin with and it was released on the eve of that style of music becoming irrelevant and passé.

[41Mets]

I know we all love Peter’s unique drumming style but do we think KISS would not have exploded with ALIVE if it was someone else on there? Was Peter’s style the thing that made KISS huge or was it the sum of all parts, lead by a great gimmick and a rockin’ batch of songs?

I believe any one of them could have been replaced and the band still breaks through. To suggest it had to be all 4 of them is naive in my opinion. As much as Paul wrote some great tunes and Ace’s style was an absolute blessing, there were loads of other great musicians out there that could have been just as good. You might lose some of the uniqueness of it if Bob Kulick got the gig instead of Ace, but if we never heard Ace play we wouldn’t know what we were missing.

Gene is the hardest to replace as he brought the biggest personality to it and it was his arrogance and self belief, not to mention the character he created, that drew in the most people initially. The other 3 guys were just guys in weird clothes and face paint. They weren’t far away from what Slade, Wizzard or even Bowie was doing at the time. But Gene was the one who captured the attention the most. He was scary and dangerous and added credibility to something that could easily have been dismissed as silly.

They wouldn't have made it to Alive!, if anything changed from what it was.

So even with Gene & Paul’s songwriting and their unrelenting drive and determination, Ace’s unique guitar playing and song writing, and the amazing gimmick, they fade away after a year all because Peter’s swing style of playing isn’t there? You’re kidding right?

Find an equally good drummer, create an equally cool makeup design and put him onstage with everything else they had going for them and NOTHING changes. To suggest all of this hinges on just one element is ludicrous. I know it was the chemistry and creativity that made them great, but you’re suggesting it had to be those 4 people or it all falls apart. I just can’t get onboard with that at all.

KISS have had almost 50 years of touring and recording and are still one of the biggest bands ever, yet most people only know maybe 4 or 5 KISS songs. So despite how we feel about the music and those who created it, to the masses it really wasn’t that important.

No speculative take is really more on point than any other here. To your points, though, they indeed may have been on a similar course through Alive. The first three albums were not hits at all. But with no Peter in the picture for Beth, no one knows what happens from there. There is far from any guarantee of a major breakthrough without that song. I believe that the future would have been very uncertain after 1975. I am not saying they would have doomed after Alive, but the element of Beth surely was a huge boost to their overall success and staying power at the time and we do know that for sure it's important place in band history. Without it, they don't have any clear path to building on the success of Alive and getting ever bigger. But they always may have had a passionate core following rather than becoming the major success they did. It's way more possible that they don't become a Hall of Fame, iconic band without the stroke of Beth. Not impossible for them to eventually break big, but then we have nothing to grasp onto to see that having a strong chance of happening.

[41Mets]

Beth was a hit in the US and Canada. It wasn't even a blip on the radar for the rest of the world. It wasn't this world-striding behemoth of a hit that, say I Was Made For Lovin You was. I'm sure it paid a lot of bills tho.

Domestic success had to happen first before anything for them.

[41Mets]

Beth was a hit...but it looks like Beth and Forever were fairly comparable hits... Did Forever completely change the landscape of the band? I don't think it did... I think people are maybe overstating the importance of Beth just a bit.

Not really, and Forever is not comparable in terms of importance of band history. With Beth, it was all about the timing of when it happened and how it saved the album from suddenly declining in sales and pushed them to greater heights. It is well documented.

[AliveIIside4]

The timeline was perfect for how it worked out. Eric was the best fit for 80's KISS but he left us way too soon.

[41Mets]

Beth was a hit...but it looks like Beth and Forever were fairly comparable hits... Did Forever completely change the landscape of the band? I don't think it did... I think people are maybe overstating the importance of Beth just a bit.

Or underestimating the importance of Forever. Without that song there’s no HITS tour. I’d say Beth was a bonus but Forever was necessary. The band was in better shape in 1976 than they were in 1989. No lucky hit in ‘76 and they move on to the next album, still riding high from the success of ALIVE. But in ‘89 they’re literally out of options until Forever hits the top 10.

Of course, decades later and one song has more than stood the test of time while the other as merely of the time, but in that moment Forever was probably more of a career saver than Beth ever was.

Totally disagree. Kiss was already an established act by the time Forever came out. Beth was not a bonus. It was a pivotal song at the right time to ensure Kiss not only they maintained the success generated by Alive, but pushed them to new heights of superstardom. Again, I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time. Kiss doesn't get to 1989 without what happens in the 70s. Their name and credibility from the previous decade allowed them to get on MTV to begin with.

If there is no HITS tour there is always an eventual reunion. Where Beth is a signature again.

[41Mets]

You don't see any difference between 1976 and 1990?

lol ok

I think Beth was great for them and they were thrilled with its success. I don't know that the band was toast without it...

"Destroyer sold well upon its release on March 15, 1976 and was certified gold on April 22. Although exact sales figures are not known, Stanley stated that the album initially sold 850,000 copies in the US, well in excess of any of Kiss's first three studio albums."

Beth wasn't released as a single until August. Destroyer was certified Platinum in November. Surely Beth influenced some sales, but it sounds like it was doing okay as it was if it already had 850k sold before Beth hit...

Initial sales were fine, but then fell off big time and everyone in the Kiss camp became very concerned. Then Beth hit and that all changed. It was a huge hit at the time and greatly increased their national profile and visibility. More major TV apprearances, more record store promotion, the record gets in more homes, more airplay, more press, etc. Forever just doesn't come anywhere close in terms of importance in band history. There is much context on why the song was so important. By 1989 Kiss was already well established. But the legend was built in the 70s, everything emanated from that, and Beth is very important in that era.

[Mr Slow]

Couldn’t stand Carr playing/singing,

Silly post

And I can’t stand Peter’s. What’s your point?

My point is:

1. I didn’t like think Carr’s style was a good fit for the band
2. It’s a silly post as what if’s like this thread are 110% redundant. It’s beyond being worthy of discussion imo.

Also - if you don’t like Peter’s drumming you ain’t a kiss fan

Thanks

Ah Nelly, you never cease to amaze. If you A. Can’t stand Carr and B. Think threads like this silly and redundant then why not simply scroll past?

“This topic sucks... I’m gonna comment on it!”

[Mr Slow]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

[41Mets]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

[steve]

Also - if you don’t like Peter’s drumming you ain’t a kiss fan

If all I had to choose from was the 70s stuff with Peter, I probably wouldn't be. Fortunately there's much more to the story.

[Mr Slow]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

[Grand Classic]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Well it sure as shit doesn't help that without Beth, they wouldn't have had a legitimate hit until 1979.

[41Mets]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Management was indeed very worried about the band's outlook before it took off. Making it a B side was a mistake, as we saw.

[joma5477]

Also - if you don’t like Peter’s drumming you ain’t a kiss fan

If all I had to choose from was the 70s stuff with Peter, I probably wouldn't be. Fortunately there's much more to the story.

Same, if you change 2000s with Tommy...

I love Peter. I love Eric. I think Eric was a WAAAAY better dude than Peter. The best dude KISS ever had by far.



Irony: Tommy is probably a good dude. Gene and Paul make him a douche dressing him up as Cold Gin... Singer, too. But Tommy bothers me more.

[41Mets]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Well it sure as shit doesn't help that without Beth, they wouldn't have had a legitimate hit until 1979.

A hit that made the original fanbase crumble, too. If Kiss keeps going on as a cult following band on a lesser scale leading up to then, and then they lose that smaller fanbase, anything after 79 becomes even less certain. They wouldn't have likely had the clout to get on MTV by 83 or so.

[Mr Slow]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Well it sure as shit doesn't help that without Beth, they wouldn't have had a legitimate hit until 1979.

But if they don’t have that big hit, maybe they approach the next record a bit differently. Perhaps they focus on writing that elusive top 10 song. Or maybe they don’t. KISS have only had a few legit hits in their career and it hasn’t stopped them selling millions of albums and touring consistently for almost 50 years.

Beth hitting the top 10 was fantastic for all concerned, but it didn’t make or break the band. It merely added more fuel to what was already becoming a very big fire.

[41Mets]

Also - if you don’t like Peter’s drumming you ain’t a kiss fan

If all I had to choose from was the 70s stuff with Peter, I probably wouldn't be. Fortunately there's much more to the story.

Same, if you change 2000s with Tommy...

I love Peter. I love Eric. I think Eric was a WAAAAY better dude than Peter. The best dude KISS ever had by far.



Irony: Tommy is probably a good dude. Gene and Paul make him a douche dressing him up as Cold Gin... Singer, too. But Tommy bothers me more.

As a person, Tommy is right there with Carr in his terrific treatment of fans.

[Mr Slow]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Well it sure as shit doesn't help that without Beth, they wouldn't have had a legitimate hit until 1979.

A hit that made the original fanbase crumble, too. If Kiss keeps going on as a cult following band on a lesser scale leading up to then, and then they lose that smaller fanbase, anything after 79 becomes even less certain. They wouldn't have likely had the clout to get on MTV by 83 or so.

You’re talking to the wrong person. This guy doesn’t even think they make it to ALIVE without Peter’s swing drumming.

[joma5477]

As a person, Tommy is right there with Carr in his terrific treatment of fans.

Probably accurate. I don't blame Tommy for playing Ace. I'm sure it's an honor to him and and a nice payday. But I still can't fucking stand it and think it's a disgrAce. I blame G&P for it.

[41Mets]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Well it sure as shit doesn't help that without Beth, they wouldn't have had a legitimate hit until 1979.

A hit that made the original fanbase crumble, too. If Kiss keeps going on as a cult following band on a lesser scale leading up to then, and then they lose that smaller fanbase, anything after 79 becomes even less certain. They wouldn't have likely had the clout to get on MTV by 83 or so.

You’re talking to the wrong person. This guy doesn’t even think they make it to ALIVE without Peter’s swing drumming.

I might disagree on that point, yes. But in a fantasy scenario without Peter, no view is more valid than any other.

My concern would be without Beth, there is indeed a greater risk for the band not making it, especially past 1980 or so. I think they could survive decently, but their album sales would be lesser and they would not be able to make it into the 80s MTV mix. They might not last so long and have such a massive success on the reunion. That becomes much more possible without a big hit to create a major splash.

[41Mets]

As a person, Tommy is right there with Carr in his terrific treatment of fans.

Probably accurate. I don't blame Tommy for playing Ace. I'm sure it's an honor to him and and a nice payday. But I still can't fucking stand it and think it's a disgrAce. I blame G&P for it.

I used to feel that way, I get it. But I am Ok with Tommy now. He is the fit for the nostalgia show they do now. Like this thread illustrates, certain band members were in the band at the right times to make certain things happen.

[Grand Classic]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Well it sure as shit doesn't help that without Beth, they wouldn't have had a legitimate hit until 1979.

But if they don’t have that big hit, maybe they approach the next record a bit differently. Perhaps they focus on writing that elusive top 10 song. Or maybe they don’t. KISS have only had a few legit hits in their career and it hasn’t stopped them selling millions of albums and touring consistently for almost 50 years.

Beth hitting the top 10 was fantastic for all concerned, but it didn’t make or break the band. It merely added more fuel to what was already becoming a very big fire.

They already considered Destroyer a failure prior to Beth breaking and working with Ezrin was a mistake, which is why they went to work with Kramer on an album that had no hits and then Love Gun, an album that had no hits and so on. I might agree with you if KISS managed to have a real hit per album, but they didn't.

[Phyllis Simmons]

The Beth argument is obviously a very good one re career trajectory; and that without it real questions can be asked about how it may have panned out.

Maybe, just maybe Ezrin as “musical director’ forces Paul to write a cross over ballad for Destroyer. Maybe we get Hard Luck Woman a year earlier; a song probably just as good. Maybe that is the song that shows KISS’ other dimensions and gets traction? A lot of maybe’s for sure. That’s why these hypotheticals can be interesting.

[jkiss]

I am not saying they would have disappreared without it, but it provided the big boost that was really needed at the right time.

I’m saying the same thing. It’s others here that seem to suggest that is the case though. You should discuss it with them.

I found your posts to be very interesting in other respects, which is why I responded to you to begin with.

If others believe that they would have disappeared without it that is equally as valid, as this is all fantasy stuff.

Yep I agree. We’ll obviously never know what might have been had things unfolded differently. I just can’t accept that KISS in 1976 lived or died depending on the success of 1 single. And a B side no less!

Management was indeed very worried about the band's outlook before it took off. Making it a B side was a mistake, as we saw.

I figure there is some drama we aren't fully aware of related to that being put on the B-side. And directly related to Paul & Gene going over Bill's head to Neil regarding "Beth". Also, with that very unusual "Detroit Rock City" mix ...something I think Bill was involved with (perhaps using Sean) in an attempt to counter being pushed to the flip-side of the single.

Even with this suggestion of Gene's to Peter about changing "Beck" to "Beth" ...I don't feel he suggested it to be exactly helpful, either (RE: Neil's divorce). If anything, from the sounds of things Paul & Gene were attempting to undermine/sabotage the song right from the time it was submitted to Bob (& he wanted to turn it into some orchestrated masterpiece).

In the end, Bill got what he wanted (& paid for), which was a Bob Ezrin produced hit song.

[41Mets]

The Beth argument is obviously a very good one re career trajectory; and that without it real questions can be asked about how it may have panned out.

Maybe, just maybe Ezrin as “musical director’ forces Paul to write a cross over ballad for Destroyer. Maybe we get Hard Luck Woman a year earlier; a song probably just as good. Maybe that is the song that shows KISS’ other dimensions and gets traction? A lot of maybe’s for sure. That’s why these hypotheticals can be interesting.

Hard Luck Woman already had the boost of greater possible initial exposure as Kiss was already more popular and it was another Peter fronted tune. And it was a minor hit. So something else would have had to magically appear to turn the fortunes at that point. And who knows if it even happens. It was not just the song itself it was also the timing of it. That kind of convergence of factors and all the other elements involved in the timelines of it is very hard to conceive of being replaced to the same levels of impact. Fun it can be but difficult to see it being effectively replicated.

[domino65]

They wouldn't have made it past 1976.

Again, why? The appeal to bored housewives of an AM radio ballad that was mostly the work of two other people? Eric could have written something much better if he were there at the time and only needed help with the lyrics.

Quick question...

What other big hits did Kiss have before or after that song?

Peter brought in Kiss's biggest hit at just the right time.

This is Peter Criss in 1976.



The idea that Eric could've written much better songs...

Well... I've heard the whole album he wrote and the whole Kiss catalog he was on, and frankly, he didn't write a single better song than Beth, at least in a commercial sense.

i don't think Little Caesar would have hit big in 1977!

[battra]

So even with Gene & Paul’s songwriting and their unrelenting drive and determination, Ace’s unique guitar playing and song writing, and the amazing gimmick, they fade away after a year all because Peter’s swing style of playing isn’t there? You’re kidding right?

How many gimmick bands last?

The answer is ever so few.

Kiss lasted because Beth saved them.

Haha what?!?! We’re talking about a band that survived nearly 50 years on a gimmick! Beth gave them a boost but no way it saved them. Something else would’ve happened. KISS at that time was an irresistible force. They would have made it even without a fluke single.

I have no idea why you think:

A. Kiss was an unstoppable force. Had Alive! not hit, you realize Kiss's money source dries up and they go back and get 9-5 jobs right?

B. That Kiss without Peter Criss at that point was still Kiss and would be subject to the same rules.

But because we’re talking about Beth, ALIVE had already hit big and they were starting to consistently fill arenas. The ALIVE tour averaged 8,000. So they were well on their way.

When I use the term “unstoppable force” I mean it as a live act and as a concept. It was great timing that Beth struck gold but to me KISS didn’t necessarily need it. With the image and the live following they were building they were destined for superstardom at the time regardless.

To say otherwise is completely dismissing what came after. ROCK AND ROLL OVER, LOVE GUN, ALIVE II, they all would have still happened. The record label wasn’t going to drop a band that had a platinum album and a gold follow up. They had at least a couple more albums grace.

8,000 is not consistently filling arenas. Unless your playing backwater AA places like Kalamazoo or Roanoke.

Yes, everything that came after might have made it, but it's kind of like playing a game of solitaire.

Ya gotta get the card that bridges the gap. That's what Beth was. It was the single that saved their butts. Without it, the band doesn't continue.

And we're also assuming something big here...

That Eric Carr 10 years earlier is the same drummer he was 10 years later.

Big assumption.

[battra]

I almost think it would've been better if KISS simply vanished after their final "ALIVE II" tour show. Perhaps made it look like they were snatched by E.T. aliens & beamed-up to an U.F.O. flying saucer. And nobody knows, KISS is just gone (no trace); however, they return 20 years later, in say 1998 ...& do five or so more years of shows, then vanish again, forever.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
I can’t even imagine a world without UNMASKED, CREATURES, REVENGE, CARNIVAL OF SOULS (4 of my top 5) or without all those magical moments between 1978 and 1997. Even to have the last decade or so erased is something I wouldn’t be happy about. Warts n all, I’m glad we had a pretty consistent 47 years of KISStory.

And that's the same problem some may have with erasing Peter from KISSTORY, plus this idea he wasn't at all needed or there wasn't much value in what he brought to the band.

I’m not suggesting he didn’t bring value. My point was that with everything they had going for them in the beginning (which was arguably as good as it gets) they could almost have swapped out any guy and still become massive.

As fans we grew to love Paul’s voice, Ace’s guitar etc. but we also love lots of other singers & guitarists. And I think people suggesting that without Beth they were doomed are really selling everything else they did very short.

You're not arguing that he's lacking value, you're just arguing that swapping him out is a zero sum game.

He's not worthless, he just didn't do anything to help is what you just said.

[battra]

Beth was a hit...but it looks like Beth and Forever were fairly comparable hits... Did Forever completely change the landscape of the band? I don't think it did... I think people are maybe overstating the importance of Beth just a bit.

Let's think about this.

Alive! was a major hit.

The world was calling them a one hit wonder.

They had three singles fail right in a row and their fourth consecutive studio album was failing.

Then Kiss hits it big in the mainstream (the record buying public) and all of a sudden their career is back on track.

Forever compares to this how?

[Anomaly]

KISSFAQ might not be a thing.

[battra]

I was watching Year of Hell Parts 1 & 2 last night on Star Trek Voyager right?

It was bout this race of people who destroyed themselves via temporal weaponry...by erasing things out of the time space continuum in order to restore the galaxy's past to what it once was.

You take out Petey Pie...and you don't have the same band.

[Mr Slow]

So even with Gene & Paul’s songwriting and their unrelenting drive and determination, Ace’s unique guitar playing and song writing, and the amazing gimmick, they fade away after a year all because Peter’s swing style of playing isn’t there? You’re kidding right?

How many gimmick bands last?

The answer is ever so few.

Kiss lasted because Beth saved them.

Haha what?!?! We’re talking about a band that survived nearly 50 years on a gimmick! Beth gave them a boost but no way it saved them. Something else would’ve happened. KISS at that time was an irresistible force. They would have made it even without a fluke single.

I have no idea why you think:

A. Kiss was an unstoppable force. Had Alive! not hit, you realize Kiss's money source dries up and they go back and get 9-5 jobs right?

B. That Kiss without Peter Criss at that point was still Kiss and would be subject to the same rules.

But because we’re talking about Beth, ALIVE had already hit big and they were starting to consistently fill arenas. The ALIVE tour averaged 8,000. So they were well on their way.

When I use the term “unstoppable force” I mean it as a live act and as a concept. It was great timing that Beth struck gold but to me KISS didn’t necessarily need it. With the image and the live following they were building they were destined for superstardom at the time regardless.

To say otherwise is completely dismissing what came after. ROCK AND ROLL OVER, LOVE GUN, ALIVE II, they all would have still happened. The record label wasn’t going to drop a band that had a platinum album and a gold follow up. They had at least a couple more albums grace.

8,000 is not consistently filling arenas. Unless your playing backwater AA places like Kalamazoo or Roanoke.

Yes, everything that came after might have made it, but it's kind of like playing a game of solitaire.

Ya gotta get the card that bridges the gap. That's what Beth was. It was the single that saved their butts. Without it, the band doesn't continue.

And we're also assuming something big here...

That Eric Carr 10 years earlier is the same drummer he was 10 years later.

Big assumption.

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

As for bridging the gap, I get that. But if you look at KISS in 1976-1978 for those 3 years they threw that much stuff at the wall that something would have stuck. You don’t need that fluke single to sell a million albums. How much did ALIVE II sell initially with no big chart buster? KISS have only had a few legitimate hits yet survived almost 50 years. Hits Shmits!

And the tour numbers? That was definitely on the increase regardless of Beth. I can’t imagine too many people went to see a KISS concert because they wanted to hear the slow love ballad. Who dragged DESTROYER from 850,000 (where it stalled prior to Beth) into platinum album territory? Were middle aged women suddenly going to KISS concerts?

I really hope my hypothetical scenarios don’t sound like I’m bashing on Peter. I think he brought so much to the band in those early years and was an integral part just like the other 3. But this discussion lead me down this rabbit hole and it’s fun to look back and ponder different scenarios. The truth is, we’ll never know what an alternate universe would have looked like. Next up: what if Bob Kulick got the gig instead of Ace?

[jkiss]

.

[sabresaxon]

I wonder what make-up design Eric would have created had he had the freedom to so in 1973.

[doombies]

I wonder what make-up design Eric would have created had he had the freedom to so in 1973.

Eric had the freedom in 1980, it was Vinnie that didn’t have the freedom

[joma5477]

Beth was a hit...but it looks like Beth and Forever were fairly comparable hits... Did Forever completely change the landscape of the band? I don't think it did... I think people are maybe overstating the importance of Beth just a bit.

Let's think about this.

Alive! was a major hit.

The world was calling them a one hit wonder.

They had three singles fail right in a row and their fourth consecutive studio album was failing.

Then Kiss hits it big in the mainstream (the record buying public) and all of a sudden their career is back on track.

Forever compares to this how?

Destroyer sold 850k copies in less than 6 months without Beth as a single. I wouldn't call that a failure.

[sabresaxon]

I wonder what make-up design Eric would have created had he had the freedom to so in 1973.

Eric had the freedom in 1980, it was Vinnie that didn’t have the freedom

I thought Paul came up with the Fox?

[Mr Slow]

I almost think it would've been better if KISS simply vanished after their final "ALIVE II" tour show. Perhaps made it look like they were snatched by E.T. aliens & beamed-up to an U.F.O. flying saucer. And nobody knows, KISS is just gone (no trace); however, they return 20 years later, in say 1998 ...& do five or so more years of shows, then vanish again, forever.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
I can’t even imagine a world without UNMASKED, CREATURES, REVENGE, CARNIVAL OF SOULS (4 of my top 5) or without all those magical moments between 1978 and 1997. Even to have the last decade or so erased is something I wouldn’t be happy about. Warts n all, I’m glad we had a pretty consistent 47 years of KISStory.

And that's the same problem some may have with erasing Peter from KISSTORY, plus this idea he wasn't at all needed or there wasn't much value in what he brought to the band.

I’m not suggesting he didn’t bring value. My point was that with everything they had going for them in the beginning (which was arguably as good as it gets) they could almost have swapped out any guy and still become massive.

As fans we grew to love Paul’s voice, Ace’s guitar etc. but we also love lots of other singers & guitarists. And I think people suggesting that without Beth they were doomed are really selling everything else they did very short.

You're not arguing that he's lacking value, you're just arguing that swapping him out is a zero sum game.

He's not worthless, he just didn't do anything to help is what you just said.

Where did I say that? He did plenty. They all did. But put a different person in anybody’s place and that new person potentially adds plenty too. Look at Vinnie. He co-wrote 8 of the 10 songs on LIU. Now you and I may prefer what Ace brought to the band, but he’s not the only guy that could play guitar and write a song.

We all know and love the original members. That’s a given. But I believe you could have had (for example) Gene, Peter, Ace & David Lee Roth and you still have a pretty kick ass band. We can look back now and say that Paul’s songwriting, voice and rhythm guitar were important and it helped create a situation where all 4 guys sang, but if we never had those elements we wouldn’t miss them.

Would any KISS fan in the mid 70’s be thinking “I like KISS but I’m not going to listen to them because there’s only 1 singer”? Of course not. We would have loved David Lee Roth as “The Bandit” every bit as much as we loved Paul Stanley as “The Starchild” (maybe more in recent years!) The elements that made KISS unique (the 4 voices, Ace’s guitar style, the songwriting, the theatrics etc.) would not be missed if we never knew they existed.

If Ace skips the KISS audition and ends up as the guitar player for Cheap Trick, then we’d simply admire him as a great guitar player in a great band. There’s hundreds of great players in hundreds of great bands. Did we get the absolute best 4 guys ever in the history of rock? They formed a formidable quartet that ruled the world, but there are better musicians out there for sure.

And this is coming from a guy who has played in bands all my life so I understand there’s a certain element of chemistry and you need to click musically. No point putting Neil Peart in original KISS for example. But you could have had someone like Mick Tucker (The Sweet) and KISS becones an absolute musical juggernaut. But you still have no Beth of course!

[In the Suds]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

[Mr Slow]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

[In the Suds]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

I'm not going to get into Peter's "swing style drumming"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said Peter's drumming was so great that he alone made all the difference. It's the chemistry of the four players together. That's a different thing. I don't know if they would have made it anyway. None of us can know that.


I do feel confident in saying they wouldn't have been as good. That's what matters to me.

[Mr Slow]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

I'm not going to get into Peter's "swing style drumming"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said Peter's drumming was so great that he made alone all the difference. It's the chemistry of the four players together. That's a different thing. I don't know if they would have made it anyway. None of us can know that.


I do feel confident in saying they wouldn't have been as good. That's what matters to me.

And me too. But Nirvana had more fame in 5 years than Rush have had in 50, yet they weren’t even worthy of tuning Alex’s guitar. So good isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

[In the Suds]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

I'm not going to get into Peter's "swing style drumming"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said Peter's drumming was so great that he made alone all the difference. It's the chemistry of the four players together. That's a different thing. I don't know if they would have made it anyway. None of us can know that.


I do feel confident in saying they wouldn't have been as good. That's what matters to me.

And me too. But Nirvana had more fame in 5 years than Rush have had in 50, yet they weren’t even worthy of tuning Alex’s guitar. So good isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Well that's where we differ. I love Nirvana and think they deserved every bit of the success they had.


And Rush were hugely successful band by any reasonable metric. So I don't really know where you're coming from there.


But whatevs!

My point about success vs. "good" is basically this: I can't spend Paul Stanley's millions. But I can listen to Dressed to Kill. So KISS's success level doesn't matter as much as the awesome "rockingness" of their classic sound. A sound that would have not existed with a different lineup.

[Mr Slow]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

I'm not going to get into Peter's "swing style drumming"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said Peter's drumming was so great that he made alone all the difference. It's the chemistry of the four players together. That's a different thing. I don't know if they would have made it anyway. None of us can know that.


I do feel confident in saying they wouldn't have been as good. That's what matters to me.

And me too. But Nirvana had more fame in 5 years than Rush have had in 50, yet they weren’t even worthy of tuning Alex’s guitar. So good isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Well that's where we differ. I love Nirvana and think they deserved every bit of the success they had.


And Rush were hugely successful band by any reasonable metric. So I don't really know where you're coming from there.


But whatevs!

My point about success vs. "good" is basically this: I can't spend Paul Stanley's millions. But I can listen to Dressed to Kill. So KISS's success level doesn't matter as much as the awesome "rockingness" of their classic sound. A sound that would have not existed with a different lineup.

I was just comparing talent. Nirvana might have had some good songs but they weren’t musically as good as Rush. That can’t be debated. But then again, “good” doesn’t necessarily mean “talent” either.

[doombies]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

I'm not going to get into Peter's "swing style drumming"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said Peter's drumming was so great that he made alone all the difference. It's the chemistry of the four players together. That's a different thing. I don't know if they would have made it anyway. None of us can know that.


I do feel confident in saying they wouldn't have been as good. That's what matters to me.

And me too. But Nirvana had more fame in 5 years than Rush have had in 50, yet they weren’t even worthy of tuning Alex’s guitar. So good isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Well that's where we differ. I love Nirvana and think they deserved every bit of the success they had.


And Rush were hugely successful band by any reasonable metric. So I don't really know where you're coming from there.


But whatevs!

My point about success vs. "good" is basically this: I can't spend Paul Stanley's millions. But I can listen to Dressed to Kill. So KISS's success level doesn't matter as much as the awesome "rockingness" of their classic sound. A sound that would have not existed with a different lineup.

I was just comparing talent. Nirvana might have had some good songs but they weren’t musically as good as Rush. That can’t be debated. But then again, “good” doesn’t necessarily mean “talent” either.

so a good musician (or band) that isn’t talented?

ok

[Mr Slow]

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

I could not disagree with this more. They were a band before they were a 'concept'


A band with a specific sound created by four equally important members. Take one out and it's a whole different sound.

Of course it is. No doubt about that. But if you replace someone with a good musician then you’ve still got a good band. It may not quite be as good (or it might even be better) but that doesn’t mean it fails. If Peter was never in KISS you wouldn’t know you missed him.

Did KISS rise to fame because of the concept, the live shows and the rock anthems or did they hit it big because of Peter’s swing style drumming?

I'm not going to get into Peter's "swing style drumming"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said Peter's drumming was so great that he made alone all the difference. It's the chemistry of the four players together. That's a different thing. I don't know if they would have made it anyway. None of us can know that.


I do feel confident in saying they wouldn't have been as good. That's what matters to me.

And me too. But Nirvana had more fame in 5 years than Rush have had in 50, yet they weren’t even worthy of tuning Alex’s guitar. So good isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Well that's where we differ. I love Nirvana and think they deserved every bit of the success they had.


And Rush were hugely successful band by any reasonable metric. So I don't really know where you're coming from there.


But whatevs!

My point about success vs. "good" is basically this: I can't spend Paul Stanley's millions. But I can listen to Dressed to Kill. So KISS's success level doesn't matter as much as the awesome "rockingness" of their classic sound. A sound that would have not existed with a different lineup.

I was just comparing talent. Nirvana might have had some good songs but they weren’t musically as good as Rush. That can’t be debated. But then again, “good” doesn’t necessarily mean “talent” either.

so a good musician (or band) that isn’t talented?

ok

That can exist, sure. There has been a lot of mediocre artists/bands that have made it big.

[41Mets]

So even with Gene & Paul’s songwriting and their unrelenting drive and determination, Ace’s unique guitar playing and song writing, and the amazing gimmick, they fade away after a year all because Peter’s swing style of playing isn’t there? You’re kidding right?

How many gimmick bands last?

The answer is ever so few.

Kiss lasted because Beth saved them.

Haha what?!?! We’re talking about a band that survived nearly 50 years on a gimmick! Beth gave them a boost but no way it saved them. Something else would’ve happened. KISS at that time was an irresistible force. They would have made it even without a fluke single.

I have no idea why you think:

A. Kiss was an unstoppable force. Had Alive! not hit, you realize Kiss's money source dries up and they go back and get 9-5 jobs right?

B. That Kiss without Peter Criss at that point was still Kiss and would be subject to the same rules.

But because we’re talking about Beth, ALIVE had already hit big and they were starting to consistently fill arenas. The ALIVE tour averaged 8,000. So they were well on their way.

When I use the term “unstoppable force” I mean it as a live act and as a concept. It was great timing that Beth struck gold but to me KISS didn’t necessarily need it. With the image and the live following they were building they were destined for superstardom at the time regardless.

To say otherwise is completely dismissing what came after. ROCK AND ROLL OVER, LOVE GUN, ALIVE II, they all would have still happened. The record label wasn’t going to drop a band that had a platinum album and a gold follow up. They had at least a couple more albums grace.

8,000 is not consistently filling arenas. Unless your playing backwater AA places like Kalamazoo or Roanoke.

Yes, everything that came after might have made it, but it's kind of like playing a game of solitaire.

Ya gotta get the card that bridges the gap. That's what Beth was. It was the single that saved their butts. Without it, the band doesn't continue.

And we're also assuming something big here...

That Eric Carr 10 years earlier is the same drummer he was 10 years later.

Big assumption.

My scenario was a little different than how this topic started. Rather than asking what if it was Eric I was suggesting it didn’t necessarily have to be Peter (or Ace or Paul or Gene) for KISS to have hit it big. The concept was so strong that I feel it still would have found its way to fame & fortune. Those 4 people all added greatness but so would have others.

As for bridging the gap, I get that. But if you look at KISS in 1976-1978 for those 3 years they threw that much stuff at the wall that something would have stuck. You don’t need that fluke single to sell a million albums. How much did ALIVE II sell initially with no big chart buster? KISS have only had a few legitimate hits yet survived almost 50 years. Hits Shmits!

And the tour numbers? That was definitely on the increase regardless of Beth. I can’t imagine too many people went to see a KISS concert because they wanted to hear the slow love ballad. Who dragged DESTROYER from 850,000 (where it stalled prior to Beth) into platinum album territory? Were middle aged women suddenly going to KISS concerts?

I really hope my hypothetical scenarios don’t sound like I’m bashing on Peter. I think he brought so much to the band in those early years and was an integral part just like the other 3. But this discussion lead me down this rabbit hole and it’s fun to look back and ponder different scenarios. The truth is, we’ll never know what an alternate universe would have looked like. Next up: what if Bob Kulick got the gig instead of Ace?

The single often gets misrepresented as something that only non sort of fans took to but the impact was greater than that. It created so much more visibility everywhere that so many new fans discovered the band. Suddenly there were major tv appearances and much more press and heavily increased promotion of the band to the point where newer rock fans discovered them. The airplay of Beth pushed them to the front of record stores etc and onto prime time tv. That's where the fan base exploded. Alive 2 sold well because of previous momentum not just on it's own.

I know we agree on some points but when people say only housewives listened to Beth that is not properly representing the impact of the song. The song boosted the profile of the band into more prominence to points,where they grew their fanbase to new and greater heights.