[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)