[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: KISS and guitar smash vs Who



> Pete may have smashed prop amps and used a beat up guitar, but that's 
> purely because the Who, at that time, couldn't afford to keep buying all 
> new equipment every time they smashed things up.  

Damn, I just knew someone would point that out.

> And to be sure, Keith didn't destroy "prop" drums.

Most of the time Keith simply kicked over his drums & very little damage
occurred at all.  A bent rim here, a cracked cymbal there.  Drums are 
pretty durable.  It was the guitar smashing that caused the most headaches
for The Who.  And cost the most money.

> A guitar rigged to collapse upon minimal impact is weak as hell and can't 
> be compared in any way to The Who or Pete Townshend.

Maybe not but I believe Paul Stanley of KISS *has* engaged in "proper" 
auto-destruction in the past with real instruments.

And I'm not so sure a comparison can't be drawn.  The Who used *pretend*
amplifiers!  For visuals - to make their stage amplification look bigger -
& for smashing purposes, as well.  It's all part of the act.  The excite-
ment.  The show.  Rock & Roll.  

Pete Townshend & Paul Stanley are of the same species.


- SCHRADE in Akron

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worship-
ped anything but himself.
   - Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821 - 1890)