Indeed very good post Vince. I just watched one of the VV Q&A sessions of a 94 KISS Expo. He basically confirmed (again) that it was after the pre-production of Animalize it was VV who walked away. He had a nice batch of songs demoed and decided to leave KISS.
Just some speculation here: could it be the KISS office got a nice bill for the studio which VV used and keeping the songs for himself? Well actually shopping around with these songs and getting a deal offered from Chrysalis Records.
Could this be the reason P&G were/are bitter and calling V unethical? Makes sense to me.
you might be onto something here. this very well could be one of the "unethical" reasons Gene & Paul don't discuss about Vinnie's departure, because it would make them look like fools to say "We paid for studio time so Vinnie could demo material for proposed KISS songs, then he took the songs with him." Two things here we already know about Vinnie to be the case are: 1) Vinnie's always been known to use ALOT of studio time writing and recording material. and 2) Hirsch Gardner claimed in a previous Three Sides interview that Vinnie did this very thing with taking the songs (master tapes) with him (the Warrior demos). Bottom line here with this idea is a moral ethical thing. Theoretically, if you pay the bill for an artist to enter a private studio to write and record music, that doesn't mean you own the song publishing or copyrights. You own the tapes, or the recorded medium used by the studio. However, in Vinnie's case, he most likely paid for and brought his own blank reels into the studio with him, allowing him to leave with them in his possession. So, Gene & Paul foot the studio bill for Vinnie to write/record songs, which they fully believe the material garnered will be at their disposal for possible KISS canon. Yet, Vinnie takes the master tapes with him. I could totally see this scenario playing out, and given the employee status Vinnie had with the band, I wouldn't blame him one bit for doing so.
If you worked for a company that payed you a weekly salary to create art, and then you saw that company selling your art with their company name plastered across it reaping millions of dollars, and then in turn only offering you 1% of that, what would you do? I know what I would do. I would begin asking for better compensation, and hold my art hostage unless they were willing to pay.