|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 16:23:55 GMT -5
All I know is that I thoroughly enjoyed Kiss during the 80's. Would I have liked a heavy sound? Sure, but as far as gaining them more credibility, that was never a goal for me. Back then, as it is now, I just don't care about the credibility of the catalogue or how it looks to other people. I enjoy it. Nothing else really matters. I can agree with this. Afterall, was KISS ever taken seriously to the general public?? Were they supposed to be?? I enjoy what they have done over the years....some things better than others....but I can say that about every band I have ever enjoyed.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 16:51:48 GMT -5
All I know is that I thoroughly enjoyed Kiss during the 80's. Would I have liked a heavy sound? Sure, but as far as gaining them more credibility, that was never a goal for me. Back then, as it is now, I just don't care about the credibility of the catalogue or how it looks to other people. I enjoy it. Nothing else really matters. But as a KISS fan - what would it have taken for you to have hated the 80's? See what I am saying? You were onboard the KISS train anyway. So if they actually made more of an effort in the 80's - it stands to reason that you would have probably loved it even more than you already do.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 16:52:54 GMT -5
All I know is that I thoroughly enjoyed Kiss during the 80's. Would I have liked a heavy sound? Sure, but as far as gaining them more credibility, that was never a goal for me. Back then, as it is now, I just don't care about the credibility of the catalogue or how it looks to other people. I enjoy it. Nothing else really matters. I can agree with this. Afterall, was KISS ever taken seriously to the general public?? Were they supposed to be?? I enjoy what they have done over the years....some things better than others....but I can say that about every band I have ever enjoyed. If KISS actually made an epic hard rock album - they would be taken very seriously. They never did that. As good as RARO or Destroyer may be, they don't compare to classic albums from other hard rock bands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 16:54:52 GMT -5
I can agree with this. Afterall, was KISS ever taken seriously to the general public?? Were they supposed to be?? I enjoy what they have done over the years....some things better than others....but I can say that about every band I have ever enjoyed. If KISS actually made an epic rock album - they would be taken very seriously. Well, we're talking about the 80's here. I don't think anything that Kiss did by then would have been taken seriously by the establishment or anyone else. Once Kiss became known more for makeup, bombs and merchandise in the late 70's they'd pretty much sealed their fate as far as ongoing credibility was concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 16:58:01 GMT -5
If KISS actually made an epic rock album - they would be taken very seriously. Well, we're talking about the 80's here. I don't think anything that Kiss did by then would have been taken seriously by the establishment or anyone else. Once Kiss became known more for makeup, bombs and merchandise in the late 70's they'd pretty much sealed their fate as far as ongoing credibility was concerned. So why do other 70's bands that released albums in the 80's - receive a certain respect that KISS doesn't. I think KISS painted themselves into the corner of disrepect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 16:59:57 GMT -5
Well, we're talking about the 80's here. I don't think anything that Kiss did by then would have been taken seriously by the establishment or anyone else. Once Kiss became known more for makeup, bombs and merchandise in the late 70's they'd pretty much sealed their fate as far as ongoing credibility was concerned. So why do other 70's bands that released albums in the 80's - receive a certain respect that KISS doesn't. I think KISS painted themselves into the corner of disrepect. Other 70's bands weren't known for makeup, bombs, blood, smoking guitars, dolls, pinball machines, colour forms, bubble gun cards, etc. Once Kiss became more known for those things, the music was always going to come second in hte eyes of many people, no matter how good that music was.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:01:25 GMT -5
So why do other 70's bands that released albums in the 80's - receive a certain respect that KISS doesn't. I think KISS painted themselves into the corner of disrepect. Other 70's bands weren't known for makeup, bombs, blood, smoking guitars, dolls, pinball machines, colour forms, bubble gun cards, etc. Once Kiss became more known for those things, the music was always going to come second in hte eyes of many people, no matter how good that music was. But truth be told, KISS never released an album to make people say holy fuck, we were wrong about KISS. Instead they released albums that confirmed that KISS sucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 17:04:00 GMT -5
Other 70's bands weren't known for makeup, bombs, blood, smoking guitars, dolls, pinball machines, colour forms, bubble gun cards, etc. Once Kiss became more known for those things, the music was always going to come second in hte eyes of many people, no matter how good that music was. But truth be told, KISS never released an album to make people say holy fuck, we were wrong about KISS. Instead they released albums that confirmed that KISS sucks. If you say so. Personally, I don't think it would have mattered by the time of the 80's. Kiss' image had been cast. And I don't think any of those albums sucked.
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 17:04:48 GMT -5
Other 70's bands weren't known for makeup, bombs, blood, smoking guitars, dolls, pinball machines, colour forms, bubble gun cards, etc. Once Kiss became more known for those things, the music was always going to come second in hte eyes of many people, no matter how good that music was. But truth be told, KISS never released an album to make people say holy fuck, we were wrong about KISS. Instead they released albums that confirmed that KISS sucks. Entirely your opinion and not that of thousands of fans who still enjoy the band.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:12:12 GMT -5
But truth be told, KISS never released an album to make people say holy fuck, we were wrong about KISS. Instead they released albums that confirmed that KISS sucks. Entirely your opinion and not that of thousands of fans who still enjoy the band. Who cares about them - the fact of the matter is that KISS have never released an epic album to shut the mouths of those that have been critical of KISS and have mostly released very mediocre albums if one is truly honest with themselves, so that is why KISS are thought of in such a negative manner musically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 17:22:00 GMT -5
Entirely your opinion and not that of thousands of fans who still enjoy the band. Who cares about them - the fact of the matter is that KISS have never released an epic album to shut the mouths of those that have been critical of KISS and have mostly released very mediocre albums if one is truly honest with themselves, so that is why KISS are thought of in such a negative manner musically speaking. Who cares is right....who cares about their critics?? Not me. I know what I enjoy, couldn't give a fuck about critics, or even some liberal guy that has a message board that somehow thinks Sammy Hagar and David Coverdale are the best musicians ever....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 17:24:14 GMT -5
Entirely your opinion and not that of thousands of fans who still enjoy the band. Who cares about them - the fact of the matter is that KISS have never released an epic album to shut the mouths of those that have been critical of KISS and have mostly released very mediocre albums if one is truly honest with themselves, so that is why KISS are thought of in such a negative manner musically speaking. Being honest with myself, I don't think Kiss have mostly released mediocre albums. Those that have been critical of Kiss would not have changed their minds no matter what Kiss released. Besides, how do we judge if Kiss have released an "epic album"? Who decides that and on what basis? Sales? popular opinion? Chart success? Personally, I think Creatures is a stand out album and matches most albums released by any band around that time.
|
|
|
Post by dute on Feb 21, 2012 17:26:39 GMT -5
KISS marched to the beat of their own drum in the 70s, and a touch of the early 80s. Afterward, they fell into the crowd of other hair bands of the 80s. With Paul basically steering the ship on his own perhaps he thought this was the best option? They lost their way and made the same music that everyone else was making. Gene was phoning everything in and I'd like to think if he hadn't gone off to make a bunch of sub-par movies perhaps their albums could have been a little better. We ended up with KISS wearing more makeup in the 80s than they did in the 70s.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:29:13 GMT -5
Who cares about them - the fact of the matter is that KISS have never released an epic album to shut the mouths of those that have been critical of KISS and have mostly released very mediocre albums if one is truly honest with themselves, so that is why KISS are thought of in such a negative manner musically speaking. Who cares is right....who cares about their critics?? Not me. I know what I enjoy, couldn't give a fuck about critics, or even some liberal guy that has a message board that somehow thinks Sammy Hagar and David Coverdale are the best musicians ever.... Come on Lee - we both know that KISS have never released that hard rock album that everybody had to own, like so many other hard rock bands have. People used to make jokes that Back In Black or Zoso came with the house your parents bought. Hell as bad as they were - Quiet Riot made more of a impact over KISS in many ways just with Metal Health and everyone buying that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 17:31:25 GMT -5
Who cares is right....who cares about their critics?? Not me. I know what I enjoy, couldn't give a fuck about critics, or even some liberal guy that has a message board that somehow thinks Sammy Hagar and David Coverdale are the best musicians ever.... Come on Lee - we both know that KISS have never released that hard rock album that everybody had to own, like so many other hard rock bands have. And is that because the music was always sub par or because many people couldn't see past the makeup and merchandise?
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:37:03 GMT -5
Come on Lee - we both know that KISS have never released that hard rock album that everybody had to own, like so many other hard rock bands have. And is that because the music was always sub par or because many people couldn't see past the makeup and merchandise? Music was subpar mostly. I have been listening to Humble Pie lately and it blows me away how much better they were compared to KISS. Now I am not comparing bands per se, but here is a song that was released in 1972 and then you have the limp KISS debut in 1974. This is how KISS should have sounded.
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 17:38:25 GMT -5
Who cares is right....who cares about their critics?? Not me. I know what I enjoy, couldn't give a fuck about critics, or even some liberal guy that has a message board that somehow thinks Sammy Hagar and David Coverdale are the best musicians ever.... Come on Lee - we both know that KISS have never released that hard rock album that everybody had to own, like so many other hard rock bands have. People used to make jokes that Back In Black or Zoso came with the house your parents bought. Hell as bad as they were - Quiet Riot made more of a impact over KISS in many ways just with Metal Health and everyone buying that. Well in my opinion, KISS have several albums I like better than Back In Black.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:39:15 GMT -5
Come on Lee - we both know that KISS have never released that hard rock album that everybody had to own, like so many other hard rock bands have. People used to make jokes that Back In Black or Zoso came with the house your parents bought. Hell as bad as they were - Quiet Riot made more of a impact over KISS in many ways just with Metal Health and everyone buying that. Well in my opinion, KISS have several albums I like better than Back In Black. Of course you do - you bought into the KISS machine.
|
|
|
Post by Anomacunt the Excellent on Feb 21, 2012 17:44:19 GMT -5
There's supposed to be a wink emoticon at the end of that...right HM?
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:45:29 GMT -5
There's supposed to be a wink emoticon at the end of that...right HM? Uh, no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 17:46:14 GMT -5
First time I've heard the first Kiss album referred to as limp.
|
|
|
Post by Anomacunt the Excellent on Feb 21, 2012 17:49:04 GMT -5
There's supposed to be a wink emoticon at the end of that...right HM? Uh, no. Considering I can't stand AC/DC, I'd say there's also only (maybe) three-four KISS Albums I'd rank above Back In Black. Alive!, Rock 'n Roll Over, and Hotter Than Hell, maybe the debut as well. Does this mean I bought into the KISS machine?
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:49:11 GMT -5
First time I've heard the first Kiss album referred to as limp. Compard to other hard rock album in 71 to 74 - it is pretty limp. There are good songs there, but the production kills the album. If Ted Templeman or Eddie Kramer produced the first album - the first album would have been so much better and actually be considered a classic slab of hard rock.
|
|
|
Post by Justlee on Feb 21, 2012 17:49:35 GMT -5
Well in my opinion, KISS have several albums I like better than Back In Black. Of course you do - you bought into the KISS machine. And you bought into Sammy Hagar drawing more on tour in 1984 than Van Halen. Seriously though, I like KISS, you don't, so fucking what...oh yea, you are a liberal who thinks you are somehow superior I suppose....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 17:49:36 GMT -5
Well in my opinion, KISS have several albums I like better than Back In Black. Of course you do - you bought into the KISS machine. Bullshit. I've bought into what gives me enjoyment.
|
|
|
Post by Anomacunt the Excellent on Feb 21, 2012 17:49:39 GMT -5
First time I've heard the first Kiss album referred to as limp. Yeah, that's fucked up. One of the strongest debut albums, EVER.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:52:12 GMT -5
Considering I can't stand AC/DC, I'd say there's also only (maybe) three-four KISS Albums I'd rank above Back In Black. Alive!, Rock 'n Roll Over, and Hotter Than Hell, maybe the debut as well. Does this mean I bought into the KISS machine? I just used Back In Black as an album that is universally owned and praised. I could have said Zoso.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 17:52:41 GMT -5
First time I've heard the first Kiss album referred to as limp. Compard to other hard rock album in 71 to 74 - it is pretty limp. There are good songs there, but the production kills the album. If Ted Templeman or Eddie Kramer produced the first album - the first album would have been so much better and actually be considered a classic slab of hard rock. It is considered a classic slab of hard rock and not just by Kiss fans. You not liking it doesn't change that fact.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 21, 2012 17:59:55 GMT -5
First time I've heard the first Kiss album referred to as limp. Yeah, that's fucked up. One of the strongest debut albums, EVER. Absolutely not - not even close. In fact most KISS fans say they prefer the Alive versions over the studio versions - because well they are more alive so to speak and not as bland as on the debut. Nobody gives KISS' first album credit for being some epic debut record from the 70's. People may like it or love it - but more often than not - people go with Alive.
|
|
|
Post by Anomacunt the Excellent on Feb 21, 2012 18:02:46 GMT -5
Yeah, that's fucked up. One of the strongest debut albums, EVER. Absolutely not - not even close. In fact most KISS fans say they prefer the Alive versions over the studio versions - because well they are more alive so to speak and not as bland as on the debut. I'm judging it on the material, not the production values. Sometimes the production values help, sometimes they don't. Production-wise, I hate the debut. But material-wise? It's fantastic. Or maybe because it's KISS?
|
|