KISS WHISTLER

kiss does not suck by any means they revolutionized the live show as we know it today. without them many audio and lighting technologies would not have been developed, line should have gone through the proper licensing channels, especially with one of the most trademarked products of all times. I would go if i lived there just to see he spectacle.
 
to say that they never would have been developed is a bit bold. the skis didn't say kiss dipshit. the had a "rockstar" looking dude with a guitar. maybe all of rock and roll should have collectively had line pull the anthem. i'm not going to get into an argument about the line/kiss thing, it's played. all i have to say is that i think it's really ironic that kiss would play in a ski town after that whole fiasco.
 
the "rockstar" guy and design scheme was a direct rip-off of the characters and style kiss has developed over the years and if anyone at line could honestly say they had no idea it was similar to kiss is a liar. I could show that ski to my 60 year old father and he would say it is a kiss rip off. It is not ironic for them to play in a ski town, the band probably had no idea that lawsuit existed, the publishing and licensing company deals with that sort of thing. Their tour management sees whistler as a resort town that is ripe to exploit for a show, resorts equal crowds with cash. A small core company would not deter a band of their status from cashing in on a show. Way to resort to name calling, that really proved a point. It just shows you know nothing of entertainment or copyright laws. it is a shame we had to get into this, I am not a huge fan of kiss but they are a rock force to be reckoned with. again i would like to see the show for the pyrotechnics.
 
word, i still like there songs but i cant believe they would fuck over a ski company.......

who ever is going should make GIANT LINE SKIS posters and where line t-shirts if you have one... and go make gene simons sign your line poster...seriously..
 
They produced the need for controlled pyro in live music and production venues, safety, and sync to lighting consoles came from them asking for it to be done. They also stepped up audio one more step after the beatles. The beatles had the shows in the 60's and nobody heard anything, after the beatles changed live audio kiss took the need for a louder show one step further. It is not to say it would have never been developed but they were responsible for it.
 
No that would be spinal tap. They changed everything by going one more notch up and turning their volumes up to eleven.
 
KISS has good songs, but as people they are scumbags for what they did to LINE. Seriously, if you look at any rock band from that time frame, everyone had that same crazy look to them. So if KISS were the only ones who can use that look, why aren't they going after all the other bands who are trying to steal their style.
 
regardless of what kinda lighting and pyro developements they may claim I really dont think kiss was that revolutionary. I mean I'm pretty sure lights would've been invented without them, and fire too. come to think of it i'm pretty sure thomas edison and the cavemen had that shit on lockdown a while ago.
 
they didnt do shit to line. its the law. its called copyrights. line put paul stanley on their skis and they suffered the consequences. no different then K2s made'n not gettin made anymore because of the ironmaiden graphic on the ski. KISS invented stage prescense and i get to see it front row with my step popz who is gene in a kiss tribute band. I'm practically gunna have blood spat on me and hopefully get set on fire. Also never take your kids to the tube park in whistler after this concert its gunna be tainted from all the sex drugs and rock and roll

love pz
 
ok they gave alot to the modern concert, i apreciate that, but how can someone actually take theirselves so seriously that they want to make everything "kiss" related. and besides they made a kiss snowboard, why did they have to take the skis off production?
 
the snowbaord company asked permission. then kiss gets a lil cut of the money like maybe 1% of every snowboard sold or something. everythings all about makin money apparently
 
I see that Line used KISS' "image", but to put a small company out of production of a whole model of ski?

Just for money? Screw KISS. I like the whole idea to wear LINE to the concert.
 
They pursued the lawsuit though. And don't ask me "dude if you were in their shoes, you would wanna make money too". No, once I was already that well off I wouldn't sue a small company over shit like that, ski company or not. That is just ridiculous.
 
so, i gots a question too. How did Kiss actually find out that a small ski company had skis that semi-represented their image?
 
thank you. Gene Simmons is just a sell out mother fucker. just cause they have a rockstar with a white face doesnt mean that KISS has to sew line for it. personally i think it was bullshit, and i wasnt even going to get the ski.
 
I thought Woodstock was the cause for extra volume on a whole new scale during that time. I don't think there was anything like it before, and there was a microphone developed that is what we see today, which reduced that squeal from the mic picking up the noise from the speakers. I saw it on the History channel or something.
 
actually it wasnt a rockstar with a white face it was a shot of paul stanley. if you dont exactly copy you can work around it. like k2s SKIS sweater in the same KISS writting, same letters differently placed = no lawsuit

thanks PZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top