[danfan]

Paul's words on Beth:

Criss is desperately proud of the song, but Stanley claims the drummer had little to do with its creation. "Peter can't write a song, because Peter doesn't play an instrument," Stanley argues. "Penridge came up with [sings], 'Beth, I hear you calling. . . .' Peter had nothing to do with it. Because if you write one hit song, you should be able to write two. That's the reality. Devastating? It's the truth. It was a lifeline that Peter hung on to validate himself, but it wasn't based on reality."

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by RS8MB0R8

I'll just add that trying to start a topic based on pure speculation to have yet another dig at Richie's questionable character is going a tad overboard, much like the 'dissection' of his remarks in the interview being discussed in the other thread.

I didn't have an agenda, I just wanted to point out what Paul wrote. Others in this thread do seem to have a chip on their shoulders, though. I'm not trying to have a dig at Richie, I like the guy. I'm just saying that he may have been trying to make him look better in this situation. There's no reason for Paul to lie, and every reason for Richie to make it seem like HE was the one who turned the gig down. I'm not saying Richie's lying, but he was a nobody at that point, and I'm sure he would've joined KISS if they'd asked him. But they didn't.

And having another opinion from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE, is hardly speculation.

Ice

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by danfan

Paul's words on Beth:

Criss is desperately proud of the song, but Stanley claims the drummer had little to do with its creation. "Peter can't write a song, because Peter doesn't play an instrument," Stanley argues. "Penridge came up with [sings], 'Beth, I hear you calling. . . .' Peter had nothing to do with it. Because if you write one hit song, you should be able to write two. That's the reality. Devastating? It's the truth. It was a lifeline that Peter hung on to validate himself, but it wasn't based on reality."

So? Where does it say Paul wrote it or wants credit for it? Beth was written by Stan Penridge and Bob Ezrin. Peter got a credit, just like many members before and after, on songs they didn't write. Paul's not the bad guy here, Peter's the one lying.

Ice

[brighton84]

Originally Posted by Iceman

I'm sure that they will find replacements for both Gene and Paul in the near future.
Ice

Im sure they will try, but once Paul and Gene leave then KISS is over.

As already stated I reckon Richie would have been a good fit for KISS but the planets just didnt line up.I would really have no idea how Paul and Gene tossed him away and went with bumblebee Vincent instead.His live performances were just embarrassing,luckily when recording an album P&G could control his output.In the end Richie got a much better gig with Jovi than limping through the late 80s with KISS.

As for Paul's book,its a decent read but there are a couple of low blows which were uncalled for. Paul is no different than any of the other KISS members,he only writes about things he wants you to know.He attaches blame to everyone and yet fails to mention misjudgements on his part.

[Captain_jovi]

Originally Posted by danfan

Paul's words on Beth:

Criss is desperately proud of the song, but Stanley claims the drummer had little to do with its creation. "Peter can't write a song, because Peter doesn't play an instrument," Stanley argues. "Penridge came up with [sings], 'Beth, I hear you calling. . . .' Peter had nothing to do with it. Because if you write one hit song, you should be able to write two. That's the reality. Devastating? It's the truth. It was a lifeline that Peter hung on to validate himself, but it wasn't based on reality."

Right. I read the book too. Where is Paul taking credit for Beth there? He's taking credit away from Peter, and rightly so as he truly did not write it, but how is he in the wrong in this case?

[danfan]

Originally Posted by Captain_jovi

Right. I read the book too. Where is Paul taking credit for Beth there? He's taking credit away from Peter, and rightly so as he truly did not write it, but how is he in the wrong in this case?

It should be water under the bridge at this point. What does Paul have to gain?