Issue #11: "The Phantom Menace"

As I write this (the end of May 1999), I think everyone is aware that Paul Stanley is taking some time off from his KISS duties to appear as the Phantom in a Toronto production of Andrew Lloyd Webers' musical, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Because of this, there have been a lot of discussion in fan-circles pertaining to the production, Paul and what it means to the future of KISS.

First off, I would just like to mention something that has been really bugging me when people talk about this topic: PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is not(!) an opera. It is a musical. The story takes place at an opera-house, yes; but that does not mean that the music being sung by Paul and other cast members would be correctly described as "opera." At the most one might get away with calling the show a rock-opera (the phoney-baloney name given to any musical in the past thirty years that happens to feature an electric guitar in the musical score), but that's stretching it quite thin; especially as the musical is more pop and classical-oriented than such rock-operas as HAIR or even Weber's own JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.

Sorry to go off on a rant there, but it is irritating every time someone refers to this musical as an opera. It just bring images to the mind of Paul arriving on stage in a Viking helmet and carrying a spear.

I believe it is just that image that propels certain fans into hating the idea. There's that image that doing theatrical stage work, such as musicals, is not masculine and will make Paul to be some type of laughing-stock. I just don't buy this, especially as musicals are some of the most difficult live performances to successfully pull off. They involve not only music and singing, but also choreography and (as in THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) special effects. It is a great deal of physical work and involves, if done properly, even more preparation than a standard dramatic presentation. Besides, what I just described sounds a lot like a KISS show anyway (choreography, singing, music, special effects), so it actually seems like a logical step for Paul. Theatrical is theatrical, whether it is done on a rock-and-roll concert stage or in a theater for a crowd of people in suits and dresses (hopefully, the women in the dresses, but I digress).

Some of the negative feelings towards Paul center around the idea that he is taking time away from the band, but that doesn't really hold true. After all, Paul has done so in the past (check out his 1989 solo tour, which left KISS high and dry for a few months and left a couple of band members wondering when they would ever see the touring-road again), and this was time planned into their schedule to have off after the PSYCHO CIRCUS tour. Besides, where were these arguments when Gene decided to perform in RUNAWAY? They weren't around mainly because at the time we as fans did not have the instant access to the everyday lives of the band members that came with the Internet. Instead of saying to ourselves, "Paul has a few months off before touring with KISS again and he will be performing in THE PHANTOM" (which was the feeling from most fans when Gene did RUNAWAY), we seem to be saying, "oh, no, Paul is not doing KISS stuff right this very moment because he wants to do THE PHANTOM. The band is doomed!"

People have got to relax. Just because Paul does something outside of KISS does not mean that the band is over or that they will never tour again. Anything is possible, of course, but to panic because of this appearance seems a bit over-the-top. After all, KISS didn't end when Gene appeared in RUNAWAY or TRICK OR TREAT (although, admittedly, it did start to have some problems when Gene began to focus too much time outside of KISS in the late 1980s), and Paul appearing in THE PHANTOM is not going to end the band either. If the band DOES end, it will be for reasons that go far beyond Paul's stint in a musical. (I personally think it'll be because of Gene's Nike commercial. No, just joking.)

I believe the negativity comes more from the idea that our rock-hero is stepping into the norm instead of staying outside of it. After all, rock is supposed to represent some type of rebellion against the norm -- that is what has always been the structure of KISS. KISS has even been rebellious against the rock-world norm, hated by critics and other rock-fans as not being the serious musicians that everyone HAS to be in order to be worthy of the rock title. Now we have Paul, the main singer of the group and the one many fans and band members consider to be the glue that kept KISS together in the 1980s, appearing in a musical.

Yet, why can we not accept the idea of Paul wanting to step outside of the "box" he has built for himself over 25 years ago? As he stated in a recent interview, he has been fascinated with the idea of doing the musical for almost ten years now, and this was his chance. Why shouldn't he take it?

Paul is a bit older now (oh, heck, we're ALL a lot older now, let's face it), but when he started in music I'm sure he had a dream of becoming successful at performing rock music on stage. He has done that, and it was a dream that he has managed to keep alive for more years than many people can ever hope for. Yet, why are we propelled to believe that people can only have one dream, or one successful dream?

Maybe because we do see Paul as the glue that held KISS together in the past, and with his eyes being focused on something else besides the band we just wonder if it means that KISS is not as solid as we want it to be. So we perhaps panic a bit about it and moan and groan about it as we're afraid of what it might actually mean to the band. However, appearing in the musical is another dream of Paul's. More so, it is a chance to shine as a single entity, as a focus that he never quite had in the band. Besides the aforementioned solo tour ten years ago and some production work for New England (which was in 1979, hhhmmmmm. . . maybe this is a pattern to all this after all), Paul has never been anything more than a member of KISS. Now he has a chance to be something different -- not more, not greater, just different. It allows him the opportunity to put on a different face to the public and work outside of the persona he has with KISS fans.

Frankly, I wish him luck. No doubt he will come back to KISS in the Fall with good memories and perhaps a fresh perspective for the next KISS tour. Will the next tour be the last one? Who knows? If it is, however, I think such a decision came long before Paul decided to put on the mask of the Phantom.

There is one thing I am curious about: I wonder if one of the reasons Paul took this role was to take a look at what roles and challenges may lay ahead of him after KISS finally is over. Will he forever be typecast as the "lover" of KISS, the guy in the makeup who sang with a blood-drooling Demon and a guy with a flying guitar? Will he ever be able to escape the public perception and be able to be other things?

As he finished the first night in the theater and saw the standing-ovation for his performance, I'm sure Paul was excited and happy with his ability to show that audience what he could do. Yet, when his eyes adjusted to the darkness and saw the crowd being made up of a good percentage of KISS fans who raised their fists in heavy-metal salutes, did Paul see the audience saluting Paul Stanley the actor or a KISS member?

And did that salute make him happy or send a shiver down his spine?

KISS ASYLUM -- KISS Museum News Archive Features Tour Dates Photos