Gene simmons accuses U2 of using backing tracks at gigs

[DaveC]

Thing is KISS don't need to do anything to make a living, whereas Sloan most definitely do need to work. Awesome that your friend got them to play his birthday party! Did the band hang out after? They're nice guys, and really funny.

Sloan was at the height of their popularity then and touring internationally, they certainly didn't need the appearance fee for a teenager's birthday party to make a living at that point.

I didn't personally get anywhere them cause there were a few hundred people there, and I wasn't close friends with the guy. I know that they at least met the birthday kid and a few of his friends after the show, but I think that was brief. They didn't hang out and party with the kid or anything.

 

[MrPryck2U]

The disparity in wealth is grotesque, so yes: I will begrudge people who live lifestyles like the super rich do when so many in society are suffering. The mega-rich are parasites. At least U2 are artists and not corporate raiders or bank CEOs who get richer every time they lay off 500 people.

And while the lawn mowing crack was tongue in cheek, people really ought to shovel their driveways and mow their own lawns. It's about self sufficiency and pride, and not living like a helpless child.

I do actually agree with you. There's Paris Hilton wealthy where she was born into it and arguably never got a callous on her hands. And then there's someone like Gene Simmons who came to the US with very little, was raised by a single mother and learned and respected the value of a dollar. Gene makes his wacky comments, of course, but he worked hard and earned his extravagant lifestyle. He's got good kids who seem to have good working class values even though they never knew want. I actually wouldn't be surprised if he mowed his own lawn, but when you're busy focusing on other things, sometimes you don't have the time for it.

 

[Galeongirl]

people really ought to shovel their driveways and mow their own lawns. It's about self sufficiency and pride, and not living like a helpless child.

That really has nothing to do with it... it's all about having the time and willing to spend the effort, or having the resources to get someone else to do it.

I don't live like a helpess child. I *could* mow the lawn if I wanted to.. but I happen to fucking hate that and let someone else do it. And I am by no means rich.


I have no lawn either, but if I had, I would definitely get someone to mow it for me.

 

[CosmoKramer]

That really has nothing to do with it... it's all about having the time and willing to spend the effort, or having the resources to get someone else to do it.



I don't live like a helpess child. I *could* mow the lawn if I wanted to.. but I happen to fucking hate that and let someone else do it. And I am by no means rich.





I have no lawn either, but if I had, I would definitely get someone to mow it for me.

Right on point, I'm with you.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Moser]

I'm surprised Gene's comment gathered this much attention.

I happen to like U2's backing tracks.

 

[brooklynmike]

I wonder if they sit around before a tour with pizza and beer and go through the old backing tracks stored up to see if they want to reuse them or update them. That'd be a fun meeting- especially in the pre- POPMART days.

 

[Montrose]

The disparity in wealth is grotesque, so yes: I will begrudge people who live lifestyles like the super rich do when so many in society are suffering. The mega-rich are parasites. At least U2 are artists and not corporate raiders or bank CEOs who get richer every time they lay off 500 people.

And while the lawn mowing crack was tongue in cheek, people really ought to shovel their driveways and mow their own lawns. It's about self sufficiency and pride, and not living like a helpless child.

How many people do U2 employ? That giant machine that is U2 on tour.. How much money do other people make off the the band ? Did U2 get all that wealth handed to them, or did they slowly work their way up and earn it?

I dunno. I don't begrudge people for making money from giving something tomthe world that people value, take joy from,,and consider their investment worthwhile. U2 has made a few hundreds bucks off me over the years in album sales and concert tickets, and I don't feel cheated. I also don't think having their own money means they can't encourage rich countries to help poorer ones out. And I don't think that related to how they arranged part of their own business' taxes.

And as for mowing your own lawn or shovelling your own snow.. I do this, but as a kid I did it for others and was glad I got,the chance to work for my own money and help some people out. I'm not a helpless child, but I might want to one day pay a helpless child to help with my lawn or my driveway so he could feel a little less helpless.


Sent from my fingertips.

 

[mobonofo]

Sequences are fairly standard these days, but U2 sound much more powerful without them. Listen to the New Year's Lovetown show and compare it to a 360 show.

 

[Mack_Again]

I am feeling okay for their use of sequencer, I mean, when I was at 306 tour, most of backing tracks especially synth part was very inaudible, I didn't even care.

 

[LemonMelon]

U2 plays in stadiums and arenas, not clubs. The mixing is always substandard and I can't hear half the shit they play anyway. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pointless thing to argue about.

 

[thavidesco]

Sequences are fairly standard these days, but U2 sound much more powerful without them. Listen to the New Year's Lovetown show and compare it to a 360 show.

Even at that show U2 used sequencers - WOWY, BAD, Streets, One Tree Hill,... But I know what you mean, at that time U2 were more raw rock n roll band, they sounded less sofisticated and more organic, but that´s how youth use to be

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

To which I say, be a man and mow your own goddamn lawn!

Maintain the lifestyle...please. Nobody should have the lifestyle that the U2s do. It's grotesque. And then Bono and his investor pals tell my government to increase its foreign aid spending while they avoid paying taxes....bah.

Oh boo fucking hoo.

 

[gvox]

Lol


Sent from my ass crack

 

[lordshola]

 

[codeguy]

In other news, U2 and the Rolling Stones remind Gene Simmons that Kiss uses embarrassing disguises and pyrotechnics to disguise the lack of depth in their music.

Except that both U2 and the Rolling Stones have too much class to respond to a geezer like Gene Simmond

 

[Flying FuManchu]

U2 has to use them because they stubbornly insist on touring as a four man group. Their live sound would absolutely benefit from extra musicians.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

?????


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[pepokiss]

U2, Kiss and wrestling

This is my favorite thread ever

 

[Scorpionac]

Gene simmons accuses water of being wet

 

[Muad'zin]

I'd rather have Terry do his additional loops and keyboard then have a whole set of additional musicians on stage. The less musicians is usually the better. That's why power trios kick ass. Whenever I'm watching Pink Floyd, or any other band that brings additional musicians along I feel less like I'm watching that band and more like I'm watching some other ensemble. And it almost never makes the music more powerful. Maybe if they engaged in endless improvisations that differed from show to show I could see merit in having extra musicians along, as it allows for flexibility. That is probably why Radiohead opted to have an extra drummer along for their last tour instead of use backing tracks. They're weird like that. But a Pink Floyd show plays its songs note for note the same night after night. All those extra musicians might as well have been pre-recorded. And since U2 also plays every song note for note night after night I prefer backing tracks. Which I might add from personal experience does require some skill to play along to as you can ill afford to miss a beat like you can with all real musicians.

But if they're going to use backing tracks and the odd keyboards, do what Muse did and bring Terry on stage. The pretense that they're still just four guys has become silly. Less musicians is better, but the ones that are should all be on stage. Even if he's just in his own little corner of Terryworld at the side of the stage.

 

[MrPryck2U]

I think it was mentioned already that Terry prefers to be offstage. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Pink Floyd hasn't toured in over 20 years and the last 2 tours featured an army of musicians that fans got used to rather quickly. Gilmour preferred a tight performance. Different strokes for different folks. No worries, Pink Floyd will never tour again.

 

[DaveC]

But a Pink Floyd show plays its songs note for note the same night after night. All those extra musicians might as well have been pre-recorded.

This is totally false. Quite the opposite, in fact. You're clearly talking out of your ass here.

 

[popacrobat]

I think it was mentioned already that Terry prefers to be offstage. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Yep.

 

[pepokiss]

IWhenever I'm watching Pink Floyd, or any other band that brings additional musicians along I feel less like I'm watching that band and more like I'm watching some other ensemble. And it almost never makes the music more powerful. Maybe if they engaged in endless improvisations that differed from show to show I could see merit in having extra musicians along, as it allows for flexibility.

 

[Mack_Again]

But I really don't like E. Street band having that many members, either. On top that, they had Tom Morello.

Anyway, Pink Floyd's case, it was double-edged sword; sometimes, another guitarists brought something on the table, but most of the time, I only want David.

For the case of U2, I think it's fine to have Terry offstage if he wants to be offstage, I guess. I understand that he isn't considering himself as another performer.

 

[U2DMfan]

You can find an article on Lawless' own website where he says he is cool being on stage and he is cool not being on stage. He doesn't "prefer" being off stage, he's just cool being an employee of U2 and will do what they ask him to do.

It's all about the sound. If you can produce the sound, then produce it. If you are resisting producing certain sounds because you only want the romanticized bullshit notion of "4 guys" on the stage, that's just as bad and archaic as the purists that are so adamantly against anything canned being played at all.

Take Gene Simmons...he's supposedly a purist about sounds not being canned and yet he needs pyrotechnics, makeup and other assorted theatrics to distract from their vanilla sound. It needs to be a "rock show" because there is little else. Some artists think their songs are good enough on their own. At one time, U2 used to believe that. Now, they're much more like Kiss. Hell, I'm cool with giving the fans a show, especially if you want to charge them a relatively absurd amount of money for tickets. But once you enter this realm, you've abandoned this purity argument in all forms...whether you're Gene Simmons or U2 keeping Lawless under the stage because of a romanticized notion of purity...or simply ego or both.

Musicians should record live, not because "it's real, man" or any of that stuff but because 1 - it sounds better and 2 - it makes you a better musician. That is - if you're concerned at all with being a better musician. Pop music, canned stuff, is fleeting. It doesn't have much shelf life for a reason. I am just as bored with most of that shit as I am with the stale stale stale blues-based rock that bands have shat out for upwards of 50 years. Take shit like the Black Keys and burn them. Please. I'd rather hear canned pop stuff like Charli XCX all day every day than them (and even she uses a live band for live performances). I don't care if there is a backing track. I love loops, I love canned stuff and have used plenty of it in my own music. Some of the best U2 music has that stuff strewn all around it. It's all about the sound. Make a cool sound - who cares how you get there? Who hasn't done this stuff? I mean, besides purist fossils that need to step in the 21st century. But it's not about purity...it's about what sounds better.

The important reason Radiohead uses the dude from Portishead as a 2nd drummer is so that the additional percussion is LIVE...that this is also some ancient ethical "no back track" purity stance is actually entirely beside the point. The point is to add a human element, even the beauty of human error and magical accidents, to the feel of the rhythm as opposed to canned beats which are entirely up and down and don't move.

This is why it should be played live - it sounds better. Imperfection is wonderful. And certainly if U2 is gonna use an additional musician they ought to be bring him out from behind or under the stage. Again, it's just as stupid as what Gene Simmons is saying. U2 want to feign 'purity' when their ego is involved ("another guy on stage besides the 4 of us? No way!") but when it comes to those other codified standards, they shed them with ease. Reason # 4,815,162,342 why the U2 ego is run amok to the point where they aren't worth being defended against just about anything anymore.

 

[The_acrobat]

Saw Springsteen last year. His band is TOO BIG. There were;

5 piece horn section
3 backup singers
1 extra percussionist
1 drummer
2 keyboardists
1 bassist
2 guitarists (Nils and Tom Morello)
1 lady playing violin or acoustic guitar
Bruce himself, who plays so many of the leads that you wonder why he needs 3 other guitarists onstage with him

Sometimes Steven Van Zandt and Bruce's wife also join them. When they do, there are 19 members onstage!!

 

[MrPryck2U]

For the case of U2, I think it's fine to have Terry offstage if he wants to be offstage, I guess. I understand that he isn't considering himself as another performer.

Didn't you hear, Mack? The U2 ego has run amuck and forced poor Terry to remain behind the curtain leaving him drowning in his tears.

 

[Mack_Again]

Didn't you hear, Mack? The U2 ego has run amuck and forced poor Terry to remain behind the curtain leaving him drowning in his tears.

Then Im sorry about it.

But Im so fine with loops because they made those sounds. Plus, I really couldn't bunch of synth parts when I was at the show, thou.

 

[LemonMelon]

Saw Springsteen last year. His band is TOO BIG.

What's inherently wrong with having a big band? Are you responsible for holding up the stage?

 

[Mack_Again]

What's inherently wrong with having a big band? Are you responsible for holding up the stage?

i think it's personal preference. From the mixing/sound engineering purpose, I feel like we shouldn't crowd the sounds with bunch of instruments; tracking 4 guitars for rhythm or something can make mix muddy, so in that case, there are in deed too much instrument.