Paul Stanley: 'I Know KISS Won't End, But I Don't Know How Long Will I Be Part of It'

Could KISS continue without Stanley and Simmons? Frontman seemingly not against the idea.

Ultimate Guitar

KISS frontman Paul Stanley recently hinted at an interesting possibility of the band continuing without him and second KISS head honcho Gene Simmons.

Chatting with the Weekender, Stanley expressed a firm belief that "KISS won't end. The question is, 'How long will I be a part of it, or Gene be a part if it?' I really don't know. As long as we can," he noted.

"Though the band has never been better, I'm also aware that I'm not the only person that can do what I do," Paul continued. "I didn't invent what I do. I was influenced by a lot of great singers and performers, and there are people out there that are just chomping at the bit to get up on stage, and I believe there is more than one person that can go up there and blow people away. At some point, I won't be there."

Oddly enough, the idea of KISS without a single original member isn't fresh, but almost a decade old. Back in 2005, manager Doc McGhee told the New York Times that the band had been "toying with the idea of recruiting an entire band to ... don the band's famous makeup.

"KISS is more like Doritos or Pepsi, as far as a brand name is concerned. They're more characters than the individual person. I think [new members] have a legitimate chance to carry the franchise," the manager added.

Without delving too much into the whole matter, Simmons also didn't discard the idea. "There's no question that there's a core of fans - five to 10 percent, my sense is - who believe in original members," he told the Launch.

"And yet, when you look at original members, the Beatles are not original members - Ringo is not an original member; the Stones - barely. You know, they've had so many members come and go, but it's the Stones; and AC/DC's aren't original members; and Van Halen; and Journey ... you go down the list of every - almost every band you can think of."

Gene also told Rolling Stone back in March that his touring days with KISS are coming to an end. "I'm 64 now. Three more tours. Two, if I have a life change of some kind," he concluded.

49 comments sorted by best / new / date

    We all know Gene will be a head like they had in futurama and still be in kiss
    He probably has enough money to afford something like that now as well. Don't give him any ideas though.
    I don't think KISS being like Pepsi is a good analogy... the majority of the time you're served Pepsi, you're first asked, "I'm sorry, will Pepsi be okay?"
    Most of the time, people don't play/listen to KISS because it's mindblowing either. But people still like Pepsi, and they still like KISS. However, if you want mindblowing, you don't partake of either.
    a brand is a brand...what's so hard for you and 30 others to understand about that? stupid ppl over-thinking things makes me chuckle
    Ringo? Really? Replacing a drummer before you record your first album and replacing the two members that have fronted the band for 40+ years is, I think, two slightly different things. Still, if they go that road, I think the perfect solution would be to just replace the whole band with animatronics. If possible, animatronics programmed to also feud bitterly offstage, to fully preserve the Kiss spirit.
    My thoughts exactly. I'd call Ringo as an original member as the other three, because that's how the world really got to know them. To me original members is the team that got the band's first contract and recorded the debut album. Pointing out Ringo Starr, of all the replaced band members in the history of rock n' roll, seems a little off. He could have mentioned bands like Deep Purple or Uriah Heep.
    A band should be a band, not just a brand name. Kiss should end. Now. But Simmons and Stanley will milk it for every cent they possibly can, because that's all Kiss means to them: money.
    It's not like it'd take talent to replace them all...I love how they listed off bands that don't have all original members and they're all far better than Kiss
    Yep and in the case of The Beatles, they got even better after losing some members.
    Why the downvotes people? Obviously I don't mean the deaths of John Lennon or George Harrisson, and certainly not the death of Stuart Sutcliffe either. Ringo was a much better fit on the drums for the studio setting, plus they were getting better at writing their own stuff as well.
    I know what you meant, Hitman. You were referring to the Quarrymen's transformation into The Beatles. Ringo was more-vital to The Beatles sound than he gets credit for (listen to `'She Said, She said', friends. Great stuff).
    My argument that a band absolutely cannot "continue without all/most of the actual, original band" would be: ....Guns 'N Roses
    Strong argument. They sellout arenas worldwide and headline huge festivals. They are at the top of the food chain, short of selling out arenas on other planets there isn't anywhere else they can go. inb4 "Slash returns to Guns N Roses, all shows on Mars sell out"
    I don't think I agree. Guns N' Roses still have Axl Rose, the band's 'only' voice, one of the founding members and main songwriters. Being the only voice a band has ever had can go a long way in certain circumstances, especially if the voice is as recognizable as Axl's. You can't have GnR's current line-up and substitute Axl with somebody else, and still call it GnR.
    I would argue that you couldnt call it GnR in its current line up. Also, Axl's voice has aged terribly. If it were strictly playing GNR songs, i'd much rather see Slash with Myles Kennedy, or like what we were treated to at the rock and roll hall of fame, the entire lineup with Myles. Sure, Axl sounds far superior 20 years ago on CD, but live nowadays, Myles is better.
    Exactly. There are singers who can come close, but no one can sing like Axl. Without him, GNR wouldn't be GNR.
    What the f*ck is Gene on about with "original members"? Nearly all those bands have members that have been in the band for so long that the so-called "original" members hardly even count, particularly with The Beatles. As for bands like AC/DC and the Stones, they've had members that f*cking died, just what point are you getting at, Gene?
    So what Gene is saying is that KISS will end up being a bunch of nobodies in makeup playing to 5 drunks in the back of some dive bar. Just end it already.
    I think Gene had his stats backwards. 5-10% would still see this "official" tribute band whereas the rest of the ex-fans would be burning the KISS swag that they bought over the years.
    Floyd Phoenix
    Love or hate Kiss this actually might be a pretty cool idea for keeping old musical legacies alive; I remember reading somewhere someone having an idea that Daft Punk could keep going forever, just passing down the helmets to new talented musicians when they get too old... Seems better in some weird way than just another tribute band, though that's essentially what it would be...
    True, though I guess this only works for bands/musicians that wear elaborate costumes and the only thing that would really be kept alive is the show itself. As you said, musically it would essentially be a tribute band, still a neat idea regardless and one I'd actually often wondered about.
    The Residents concur. But then The Residents are offensively original and don't care about making millions of dollars.
    So basically, KISS becomes for all intents and purposes a cover band in really good costumes. Like KISS or not, without at least one of the original members, it can not be the same band. IMO, without both Gene and Paul it isn't KISS.
    I think Paul is delusional if he thinks the public will still think of a band with NO original members as "Kiss". Give it a different name, at least. He is just trying to rationalize the fact that currently have two non-original members dressed up as Ace & Peter.
    So Paul and Gene would like to continue to make money out of the KISS band, I mean brand, long after they stop working. I get it. Passive income is awesome. They are both in their sixties and they want to retire. I can't blame them. They'll get a new lead singer/quitarist and a new singer/bassist and they'll sit back and get paid while other people work for them. I wonder if they will still dictate the direction their 'cover' band will write, record, and play live. Also, I wonder what kind of musicians would like to spend 5 to 10 years pretending to be someone else on the stage. Would they be allow to put out their own solo work during that time? The contract will be like 500 pages long. I think it would be great if the new 'band' turns out to be way, WAY better than the current line-up. So much better than all Gene and Paul can do is sit on the sidelines and be jealous.
    Well, they've already got Tommy Thayer, dressing like Ace, playing his solos almost note-for-note, writing/singing "original" tunes with "space" themes, singing "Shock Me" live and shooting rockets off of his guitar... doesn't sound like they are that open to allowing for much creative development, IMO.
    Why so much hatred for Kiss?
    Recently (last 15 years): Because Gene and Paul (mostly Gene) make very pretentious, offensive, hypocritical, and completely uneducated remarks (like that crap about respecting the rich or the remark in this article about Ringo or the Stones. Just dumb...), not to mention the absolute lack of respect toward Ace and Peter. In the past most of the critism was aimed toward how much of a 'cash grab' KISS was. It wasn't about the music. It was about cutting a check. The second argument I think is silly because no matter how 99% of the popular artists out there pretend it isn't about the money, it is to at least some degree. KISS was more obvious about it. To the recent critisims, I personally think Gene is an ass and I think like an over controlling girlfriend, he's made Paul believe some things that I want to believe Paul wouldn't normally believe, but they've both made some seriously horseshit remarks about Ace and Peter and when you look at the other side, you realize that Ace and Peter only tell what really happened and seem to be indifferent, which tells me, and apparently many many other fans, that Gene and Paul are full of shit. Don't get me wrong. KISS was my first concert. I love Alive I and II and went to see them 5 times when they got back together with Ace and Peter, but the shit Gene and Paul say can be very out of line.
    I'm a KISS fan, but if Gene and Paul left I'd still enjoy their old stuff but sever my fandom 'cause that would just be too lame. That said, I actually think they should stop. No Paul, the band is not 'better than it's ever been'. You cannot sing anymore, only Gene can. But Gene's voice is definitely not distinct enough to carry a whole show.
    Nothing new here. Lynrd Skynyrd tours for years without any original members, Credence Clearwater Revival tour with only the original drummer for years and there are more bands that do it as well ....
    Yeah, and what are Fakenyrd Skynyrd pulling in, 300 paid tickets 4 times a month? They are a glorified bar band.
    "Lynyrd Skynyrd" is having some concert at a really big amusement park in Virginia, Busch Gardens. I didn't even know that anyone had access to the Skynyrd name until I heard an ad for it.
    Why not just create a franchise Paul ? Then every city can have it's own version of KISS and you and your relatives can all sleep in peace and on a pile of money..
    I don't think the band would be 1/10th as big without Paul and Gene. They would essentially be sanctioning an official tribute act, and what's the ceiling on a tribute act? 2000 tickets sold once a month?
    I call originals band members who were on first album.gene just hates people who waste there life on drugs ;oh crap I mention gene's name do I owe him royalties for his name
    Yeah...."the band has never been better." Considering it's your VOICE doing the talking. Even though KISS is my all time favorite band, they're falling apart. Paul's voice is gone, they've down tuned every song the play and he still can't hack it anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to see them in my hometown in a couple weeks but, let's be honest, KISS is dying. And they know it, that's why he's gotta throw over compensating comments like that one around.
    Maybe Gene and Paul could step out and Ace and Peter back in?
    I see what he's getting at, KISS is definitely more a franchise now than it is an actual band. However, it's still a franchise built around the band. And I don't know a single band comprised entirely of members who weren't at some point iconic to that band.