The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

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
shupey
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
Posts: 5444
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:25 am
Location: Outside Jennifer Love Hewitt's house

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by shupey »

I think Loretta and Carrie (much like Eric apparently as well) have more of a problem with Paul than they do with Gene. One thing I wish G&P had said in the documentary is that "we screwed up" with the handling of Eric's illness. I think that would go a long way.
User avatar
ZachAttack
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Spends too much time FAQ'ing off!
Posts: 3306
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:09 am
Location: Branvold's Head

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by ZachAttack »

Holmgren wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pm
ZachAttack wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:15 pm
KlassicKISS54 wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:04 am
joma5477 wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:44 am



The hospital video was from April 91. I would assume the things said to have gone down would have had to have been several months later, closer to the end.

I certainly hope things didn't go as shitty as claimed, that there's two sides to every story...but I also don't believe Eric's family hate G&P for no reason, while they're still on good terms with Bruce. Might be a case of the less we know, the better. I've also learned along the way you don't really have to like the people to appreciate the band...otherwise there probably wouldn't be a lot of reason to like most of KISS. Sort of like being a fan of a sports team...the players often times aren't the most likeable people either.
I was under the impression that Eric's parents have a working relationship with Paul and Gene. Has that changed again or did I just read that wrong? I thought the family had matters sorted out with them.
His parents hate Gene and Paul. They banned them from the funeral. His sister is the one working with them
How do you know they hated them? And how come they were allowed to attend if they were banned?

They were asked not to come and came anyway. His parents are the ones who wouldn't let Gene and Paul speak to him on the hospital. It's in Paul's book
Holmgren
Trained by Tommy!
Trained by Tommy!
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: Scania

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by Holmgren »

ZachAttack wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 3:09 pm
Holmgren wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:26 pm
ZachAttack wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:15 pm
KlassicKISS54 wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:04 am

I was under the impression that Eric's parents have a working relationship with Paul and Gene. Has that changed again or did I just read that wrong? I thought the family had matters sorted out with them.
His parents hate Gene and Paul. They banned them from the funeral. His sister is the one working with them
How do you know they hated them? And how come they were allowed to attend if they were banned?

They were asked not to come and came anyway. His parents are the ones who wouldn't let Gene and Paul speak to him on the hospital. It's in Paul's book
Ok! 👍
Did Paul say why they went to the funeral knowing they were not welcomed?
User avatar
SpinningAcorn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 11:33 am

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by SpinningAcorn »

Anomaly wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:35 pm
Lofton23rdSt wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:35 pm
Anomaly wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 11:31 am
Lofton23rdSt wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:03 am

Kiss can't claim "Revenge" didn't sell well because of grunge, because Metallica's black album sold well. Anomaly said that.
You got the point I was making wrong (shocker). But, it's true, grunge wasn't the reason why Revenge was a commercial dud. Serves as a nice boogeyman, but that's not what did it in.

Has this really been living in your head for 14 months? :lol:

You're mentioning from months ago Chris Lendt lol.
Bit of a difference between a bit and posting a stance of mine as some big sort of 'gotcha' of when you bested me in an argument. But, shocker, of course you wouldn't get it.
Grunge was the reason why "Revenge" didn't do better.
Here's the reason why it wasn't. It's quite clear at this point you can't read, but, for those interested, here you go.

KISS was struggling commercially in the immediate aftermath of the release of Hot in the Shade. Hide Your Heart did nothing as a lead single as it wasn't moving significant numbers of albums. The album only made it to #29 before it began to fall down the charts - their worst chart peak since Creatures of the Night (original release.) HYH dropped out of the Billboard 100 by the time the album was about to drop out of the Top-100 on the Billboard 200 on February 3rd (it was at #90 at the time.)

Now then, what appeared on the Hot 100 chart literally the week Hide Your Heart departed it? Forever, which made its debut on the chart at #72 that week. The following week, it shot up to #59. #44 the next and by the following week they had achieved their first top-40 single in a full decade. In following the Billboard 100 performance of Forever and following the weekly charting performance of HITS, you can clearly see a coorelation between Forever's ascension up the chart and HITS suddenly getting a second wave of support to punt it back into the top-60 for nearly a full month.

Now, back to that February 3rd date. Why is that significant? That marks 14 weeks in the top-100 of the album chart before it was about to drop out until Forever lifted it. How's that compare to the previous studio album? That's literally half of the weeks Crazy Nights spent in the top-100 of the album chart.

Grunge wasn't out in 1989, yet KISS's draw as a recording act was clearly DOA until they found signs of life with a hot single. (Thank you, Michael Bolton!)

Now then, flash forward to Revenge. The singles were all weak. Unholy didn't chart on anything in the states. Domino and I Just Wanna both did worse than Hide Your Heart on the rock radio chart - yet better than Rise To It, HITS single #3.

Now, if this was grunge's fault, let's take a look at the next release with the KISS name on it - Alive III - released when grunge was really the in thing in 1993. Surely that album would have done considerably worse than Revenge, no?

- Revenge peaked at #6 on June 6th, 1992. Alive III peaked at #9 on June 5th, 1993.
- Revenge spent three weeks in the top-40 of the Billboard 200. Alive III spent three weeks in the top-40 of the Billboard 200.
- Revenge dropped out of the top-100 after 9 weeks. Alive III dropped out of the top-100 after 6 weeks.
- Once both albums were out of the top-100 though is where you see a difference. Revenge remained on the chart for an additional 14 weeks. Alive III an additional 6.
- Total US sales of Revenge from release to March 2012 - 602,000. Total US sales of Alive III from release to March 2012 - 588,000.
You are confusing alot of things and mixing apples and oranges.

Also there's nothing to show that the the sales of hits were impacted by the single. Hits was a major sales failure.

Also it's not like the hits tour did huge business. What do people claim the average is 6500 or so? Again that's only 800 so more than the bloodbath tour crazy nights. And crazy nights didn't have multiple acts with huge hits drawing in female fans.

And I don't think anyone knows the actual sales of Revenge or Alive 3. You know Nielsen soundscan numbers. But that's all you can show.
Anomaly
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 23281
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by Anomaly »

Check the chart history. Didn't cause massive amounts of units to go flying off the shelves, but it put a bunch of bandaids on a gaping bleeding mess.

I can assure you that Revenge is nowhere near 800,000 like Larry Mazer claims it is. :lol:
User avatar
SpinningAcorn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 11:33 am

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by SpinningAcorn »

Anomaly wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:58 pm Check the chart history. Didn't cause massive amounts of units to go flying off the shelves, but it put a bunch of bandaids on a gaping bleeding mess.

I can assure you that Revenge is nowhere near 800,000 like Larry Mazer claims it is. :lol:
You do know the charts weren't based on sound scan then.

And yes, the album would go up the charts when components of the charts went up. So of course it went up very incrementally .. when it was moving up the single sales and radio charts.

Revenge was at 602k just Nielsen scan soundscan numbers in 2012. I would imagine it's close to 1 million when all sales are figured.

How many outlets do you think Nielsen soundscan was counting in early 92?
That's why the riaa does not using Nielsen soundscan ... they use shipments.

And from what year are you quoting Kisses manager at the time?


What was the number kisses label said hot in the shade and sold by May 1992? And that was all it's sales, not just NSS. It was one low number.


Maybe you can tell me why you're comparing chart positions from 1989 to 1992.

Yes Revenge barely got any radio or video airplay in the states. That makes what it sold all the more surprising. Especially following an album that Kiss fans didn't purchase.

Sales of hits really plunged from Crazy Nights and Smashers, Trashes and Hits.
detroit_01
Banned
Banned
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:11 am

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by detroit_01 »

how about you just don't bother quoting me from now on.

Image
Holmgren wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:07 pm
detroit_01 wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:46 am lets not forget how horrid paul and gene treated eric carr in the end. i f*cking hate them for that too.
How can we forget when you won't go away? 😉
Anomaly
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 23281
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by Anomaly »

SpinningAcorn wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:01 pm
Anomaly wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:58 pm Check the chart history. Didn't cause massive amounts of units to go flying off the shelves, but it put a bunch of bandaids on a gaping bleeding mess.

I can assure you that Revenge is nowhere near 800,000 like Larry Mazer claims it is. :lol:
You do know the charts weren't based on sound scan then.
You do know we're talking about Hot in the Shade, right? So, yeah?
And yes, the album would go up the charts when components of the charts went up. So of course it went up very incrementally .. when it was moving up the single sales and radio charts.


Right, so what's the issue here? You're just parroting my point back.
Revenge was at 602k just Nielsen scan soundscan numbers in 2012. I would imagine it's close to 1 million when all sales are figured.

How many outlets do you think Nielsen soundscan was counting in early 92?
That's why the riaa does not using Nielsen soundscan ... they use shipments.

And from what year are you quoting Kisses manager at the time?

What was the number kisses label said hot in the shade and sold by May 1992? And that was all it's sales, not just NSS. It was one low number.


You tell me Sphinxie, you kept throwing that quoted number of 800,000 out. :lol:
Maybe you can tell me why you're comparing chart positions from 1989 to 1992.
...I wasn't? The only chart comparison I did with Revenge was 1992 to 1993.

The point of my argument was that even in 1989 the general public couldn't give a rats ass about new studio releases from KISS.
Yes Revenge barely got any radio or video airplay in the states. That makes what it sold all the more surprising. Especially following an album that Kiss fans didn't purchase.

Sales of hits really plunged from Crazy Nights and Smashers, Trashes and Hits.
Again, just getting those points of mine repeated back to me.

I will say this is great though. One guy saying Revenge was a poor seller because of grunge, one guy saying Revenge was a tremendous unrecognized success that really sold around a million copies. :lol:
Anomaly
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Nearly as many posts as KISS compilations!
Posts: 23281
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by Anomaly »

Deleted his post, but I'm still responding anyway.
SpinningAcorn wrote:Obviously you think HITS was based on NSS because you claimed it's sales were impacted because it moved up. Instead of because chart components rose therefore it rose.
Hot in the Shade has nothing to do with Nielsen Soundscan. Why you're getting hyper-fixated on SoundScan I haven't the faintest idea. Forever comes out and rises up the Billboard 100 and suddenly the album it's on isn't on its way to dropping out of the top-100 on the Billboard 200. Let's see, wonder what's selling better? An album that rises and jumps back into the top-60 for several weeks, or an album freefalling well out of the top-100?

Do you think I'm making the case that Hot in the Shade was a middle-of-the-road seller? It was still a commercially poor album even when factoring in the Forever boost.
You throw out some figure and then can't produce where it came from. If we throw out a quote back it up.
Sphinx, I'm referencing and using the 800k figure you pulled all the time on what Mazer said Revenge was at. Now, suddenly that figure's bullshit?
I'll ask again, how many outlets was NSS covering back then? It was a small fraction back when it started. Also that didn't include licensing the album to others get sold it, px sales and others. Again that's why the riaa does not use it.
Nobody's talking about certification here with the RIAA. Just you.
And I didn't say 1 million I said close. But in your mind Nielsen soundscan got them all even though they weren't counting at the biggest sellers of all back then. And kiss wasn't selling any license albums at all back then.

I don't know the sales number but I know to act like 600000 by 2012 is anywheher close is undercutting sales big time.
Around 1,000,000. Close to 1,000,000. It's the same damn thing. Are we arguing semantics now? :lol:
detroit_01
Banned
Banned
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:11 am

Re: The Eric Carr doc won't discuss Gene and Paul drama

Post by detroit_01 »

kiss fans arguing... priceless! lol...