|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 17, 2024 18:44:25 GMT -5
I have always maintained that despite my growing up on KISS and loving them - you could pretty much take any year in KISS' existence and other bands were making far better albums. Alive! would be the one exception. Even with the KISS albums that I love - the general idea is that it is great for KISS, but would be a decline for any other band if they made that album, because they took album making far more seriously than KISS, took the time to write great songs and hired the best people to achieve great results. KISS' album making model for the most part was fast, cheap and half-assed with too few exceptions to that model. So out of curiosity, I listened to the FAQ podcast doing a battle of KISS albums vs. other 70's albums. I do know going in that this is a KISS podcast on a KISS forum, so I should expect some KISS ballwashing, but I was hoping that there would be some surprising objectivity to be found here and there was some - from the Canadian guy and Love Gun vs. AC/DC's Let There Be Rock, but there were the expected what the fuck are you talking about kind of views here as well. KISS' debut isn't the masterpiece some KISS fans make it out to be. Yes, it has many classic KISS songs, but who gives a shit about that - they weren't actually hits. The album is dull, lifeless, flat, poorly produced and performed. The exact opposite of Deep Purple's Burn. Those great KISS songs are far better and really come to the life on Alive! You don't even need to own the KISS debut. Alive! or even Double Platinum will do. Now fine - people may say they prefer KISS to Deep Purple, even a Deep Purple with new members David Coverdale and Glenn Hughes, but comparing albums and thinking KISS delivered over Purple is laughable. I know Steve would agree with me here - Boston vs. Rock And Roll Over? Get the fuck out of here. The Boston debut buries Rock And Roll Over in every possible way known to man and I say that as someone who loves Rock And Roll Over and got into KISS because of that album, but the difference is that I can love something and still be objective about it. KISS wishes they could make an album like the Boston debut, but Boston is far beyond what KISS was ever capable of achieving. Dressed To Kill vs Toys In The Attic? Come on. Does anything really need to be said here? One of the greatest albums in rock history vs. the third album by KISS, where they were already out of ideas with the recording of the scraps they had left and Wicked Lester songs with the label manager producing the album. Having said that, I really enjoy Dressed To Kill. She And Love Her All I Can are among my favorite KISS songs ironically since they were Wicked Lester songs, but let's be real here as a whole when comparing albums. I know what some people might think or say. Well if YOU love the album, then it is the better to you over what other bands were doing. Ya, that's nice - fuck off. Again, I love all sorts of bands, albums, movies, whatever, but I can still be objective about them. To be honest, I don't even like Aerosmith much and certainly listen to an album like Dressed To Kill far more than Toys In The Attic, but if I was involved in such a podcast like the KISSFAQ one, I would have to say that while I may prefer DTK, I would also have to add in this to the discussion - who are we kidding though, Toys In The Attic is far better and the world would be laughing at us for saying otherwise. The truth hurts sometimes. KISS is stage show, makeup, merchandising and gimmick first. The music was secondary. And please don't give me your bullshit that KISS wouldn't have lasted for 50 years if they didn't have the songs. They barely have any real hits and the general public couldn't name 5 KISS songs if there was a gun pointed at their child's head. So yes - style, die hard KISS fans willing to spend tons of money on crap and the general public wanting to see the big show has maintained KISS for decades over any sort of real substance that the band was able to achieve when it comes to the music. KISS was supposed to be a gateway band to better bands in many cases. Many people bailed on KISS when they realized that. I have mostly stuck with KISS despite what may be perceived here as bashing KISS. Certainly there have been low points in my fandom. Everyone knows my disdain for Hide Your Heart and my almost checking out of KISS then and of course the last 20 years of two nobodies pretending to be Ace and Peter in addition to the lip syncing have just been an embarrassing and pathetic time for the band - despite Paul and Gene's accountants being happy. KISS have been a very important part of my life, but even with that, I can still be objective about them. I find that too many KISS fans are not able to be objective at all and so any sort of discussion or comparisons made among KISS fans is often just ridiculous. That's my view anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Feb 17, 2024 20:19:38 GMT -5
The first album is essential because it has Let Me Know on it...
I like KISS better than The Beatles. Don't really care that The Beatles objectively blow them away.
Kold Gin sucks, though...
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 17, 2024 20:35:53 GMT -5
The first album is essential because it has Let Me Know on it... I like KISS better than The Beatles. Don't really care that The Beatles objectively blow them away. Kold Gin sucks, though... Would you ever say in a discussion or make a post online as we have seen from morons before on the FAQ declaring KISS are better than Beatles!!! Not just stating a preference - but that they are actually better than The Beatles or Paul Stanley is a better singer than Freddie Mercury and you don't get how anyone can think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Feb 17, 2024 20:49:51 GMT -5
I have always maintained that despite my growing up on KISS and loving them - you could pretty much take any year in KISS' existence and other bands were making far better albums. Alive! would be the one exception. Even with the KISS albums that I love - the general idea is that it is great for KISS, but would be a decline for any other band if they made that album, because they took album making far more seriously than KISS, took the time to write great songs and hired the best people to achieve great results. KISS' album making model for the most part was fast, cheap and half-assed with too few exceptions to that model. So out of curiosity, I listened to the FAQ podcast doing a battle of KISS albums vs. other 70's albums. I do know going in that this is a KISS podcast on a KISS forum, so I should expect some KISS ballwashing, but I was hoping that there would be some surprising objectivity to be found here and there was some - from the Canadian guy and Love Gun vs. AC/DC's Let There Be Rock, but there were the expected what the fuck are you talking about kind of views here as well. KISS' debut isn't the masterpiece some KISS fans make it out to be. Yes, it has many classic KISS songs, but who gives a shit about that - they weren't actually hits. The album is dull, lifeless, flat, poorly produced and performed. The exact opposite of Deep Purple's Burn. Those great KISS songs are far better and really come to the life on Alive! You don't even need to own the KISS debut. Alive! or even Double Platinum will do. Now fine - people may say they prefer KISS to Deep Purple, even a Deep Purple with new members David Coverdale and Glenn Hughes, but comparing albums and thinking KISS delivered over Purple is laughable. I know Steve would agree with me here - Boston vs. Rock And Roll Over? Get the fuck out of here. The Boston debut buries Rock And Roll Over in every possible way known to man and I say that as someone who loves Rock And Roll Over and got into KISS because of that album, but the difference is that I can love something and still be objective about it. KISS wishes they could make an album like the Boston debut, but Boston is far beyond what KISS was ever capable of achieving. Dressed To Kill vs Toys In The Attic? Come on. Does anything really need to be said here? One of the greatest albums in rock history vs. the third album by KISS, where they were already out of ideas with the recording of the scraps they had left and Wicked Lester songs with the label manager producing the album. Having said that, I really enjoy Dressed To Kill. She And Love Her All I Can are among my favorite KISS songs ironically since they were Wicked Lester songs, but let's be real here as a whole when comparing albums. I know what some people might think or say. Well if YOU love the album, then it is the better to you over what other bands were doing. Ya, that's nice - fuck off. Again, I love all sorts of bands, albums, movies, whatever, but I can still be objective about them. To be honest, I don't even like Aerosmith much and certainly listen to an album like Dressed To Kill far more than Toys In The Attic, but if I was involved in such a podcast like the KISSFAQ one, I would have to say that while I may prefer DTK, I would also have to add in this to the discussion - who are we kidding though, Toys In The Attic is far better and the world would be laughing at us for saying otherwise. The truth hurts sometimes. KISS is stage show, makeup, merchandising and gimmick first. The music was secondary. And please don't give me your bullshit that KISS wouldn't have lasted for 50 years if they didn't have the songs. They barely have any real hits and the general public couldn't name 5 KISS songs if there was a gun pointed at their child's head. So yes - style, die hard KISS fans willing to spend tons of money on crap and the general public wanting to see the big show has maintained KISS for decades over any sort of real substance that the band able to achieve when it comes to the music. KISS was supposed to be a gateway band to better bands in many cases. Many people bailed on KISS when they realized that. I have mostly stuck with KISS despite what may be perceived here as bashing KISS. Certainly there have been low points in my fandom. Everyone knows my disdain for Hide Your Heart and my almost checking out of KISS then and of course the last 20 years of two nobodies pretending to be Ace and Peter in addition to the lip syncing have just been an embarrassing and pathetic time for the band - despite Paul and Gene's accountants being happy. KISS have been a very important part of my life, but even with that, I can still be objective about them. I find that too many KISS fans are not able to be objective at all and so any sort of discussion or comparisons made among KISS fans is often just ridiculous. That's my view anyway. I did a FAQ thread once asking if anyone ever felt guilty liking another bands music more than KISS as early on in my fandom I quickly realized via FOGHAT LIVE Van Halen and AC/DC I preferred many other bands music more than KISS. With KISS obviously it was the whole package I loved more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Feb 17, 2024 21:07:25 GMT -5
The first album is essential because it has Let Me Know on it... I like KISS better than The Beatles. Don't really care that The Beatles objectively blow them away. Kold Gin sucks, though... Would you ever say in a discussion or make a post online as we have seen from morons before on the FAQ declaring KISS are better than Beatles!!! Not just stating a preference - but that they are actually better than The Beatles or Paul Stanley is a better singer than Freddie Mercury and you don't get how anyone can think otherwise. Ever? Maybe if I was feeling contrary or argumentative. But not typically, no. I like Paul's vocals much better than Mercury's, though.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 17, 2024 21:08:42 GMT -5
Would you ever say in a discussion or make a post online as we have seen from morons before on the FAQ declaring KISS are better than Beatles!!! Not just stating a preference - but that they are actually better than The Beatles or Paul Stanley is a better singer than Freddie Mercury and you don't get how anyone can think otherwise. Ever? Maybe if I was feeling contrary or argumentative. But not typically, no. I like Paul's vocals much better than Mercury's, though. How about Paul vs. Robert Plant?
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Feb 17, 2024 21:16:14 GMT -5
Ever? Maybe if I was feeling contrary or argumentative. But not typically, no. I like Paul's vocals much better than Mercury's, though. How about Paul vs. Robert Plant? Paul today without tracks or autotune is better than Led Shit-boy in his prime...
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 17, 2024 21:30:03 GMT -5
I did a FAQ thread once asking if anyone ever felt guilty liking another bands music more than KISS as early on in my fandom I quickly realized via FOGHAT LIVE Van Halen and AC/DC I preferred many other bands music more than KISS. With KISS obviously it was the whole package I loved more than anything. I think I remember that thread. Did you actually feel kind of guilty and that inspired the thread?
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Feb 17, 2024 21:41:33 GMT -5
I did a FAQ thread once asking if anyone ever felt guilty liking another bands music more than KISS as early on in my fandom I quickly realized via FOGHAT LIVE Van Halen and AC/DC I preferred many other bands music more than KISS. With KISS obviously it was the whole package I loved more than anything. I think I remember that thread. Did you actually feel kind of guilty and that inspired the thread? Back in 79 after hearing Highway to Hell yes, it was a weird feeling almost like I didn't want it to be true that I liked their music better. It was something I'd forgotten about then remembered so I did the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 17, 2024 22:16:09 GMT -5
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHEEHAW!
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 17, 2024 22:26:14 GMT -5
Is that an Australian word for something? I sure as shit know you agree with me on Rock And Roll Over.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 17, 2024 23:38:44 GMT -5
I'm laughing hysterically at thw whole concept of the thread and couldn't find the Bender from Futurama gif.
There is no comparison with KISS and other 70s hard rock bands. They are hard rock Bay City Rollers at best and that's being kind. Even to consider ranking their albums alongside AC/DC, Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, BOC, Rush, Queen et al is ridiculous. They didn't take making records anywhere near seriously enough to be part of that conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 17, 2024 23:49:31 GMT -5
I'm laughing hysterically at thw whole concept of the thread and couldn't find the Bender from Futurama gif. There is no comparison with KISS and other 70s hard rock bands. They are hard rock Bay City Rollers at best and that's being kind. Even to consider ranking their albums alongside AC/DC, Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, BOC, Rush, Queen et al is ridiculous. They didn't making records anywhere near seriously enough to be part of that conversation. OK, but this is where objectivity comes in for you. You prefer 80's KISS anyway and that's fine, so would you also concede that while you loved those albums, they don't compare with the other big bands of the era either or compared to the 80's and 90's albums that AC/DC, Rush, Queen and Aerosmith were making as well? KISS didn't take album making more seriously in the 80's. Paul and Gene pocketed the record advance for HITS and released demos for fuck's sake, so that certainly isn't an argument you could make.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 18, 2024 0:02:12 GMT -5
Oh, certainly. Their attitude never changed. Get it done, get it out and go back on tour as soon as possible. My era preferences make no difference to that part of the discussion.
After Permanent Vacation, I can't take Aerosmith at all. Too polished and completely at odds with their earlier material despite being the same lineup. Even though I dig Animalize and Asylum, I also don't like Ratt, Dokken, Motley Crue or many of the other 80s bands KISS were said to be following in those days. They always sounded like KISS to me because Gene and Paul were present no matter how small their actual contributions to the songs may have been.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 18, 2024 0:08:17 GMT -5
Oh, certainly. Their attitude never changed. Get it done, get it out and go back on tour as soon as possible. My era preferences make no difference to that part of the discussion. After Permanent Vacation, I can't take Aerosmith at all. Too polished and completely at odds with their earlier material despite being the same lineup. Even though I dig Animalize and Asylum, I also don't like Ratt, Dokken, Motley Crue or many of the other 80s bands KISS were said to be following in those days. They always sounded like KISS to me because Gene and Paul were present no matter how small their actual contributions to the songs may have been. That is completely fair and I am glad you are able to be objective - despite your obvious love for 80's KISS over 70's KISS, which you mostly hate. KISS needs more fans like us.
|
|
|
Post by Margo Leadbetter on Feb 18, 2024 9:51:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Margo Leadbetter on Feb 18, 2024 9:51:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Feb 18, 2024 15:40:54 GMT -5
There were two opposing camps in the 70's. Bands whose sole focus was songwriting and musicianship - Eagles, Steely Dan, Yes, Rush, etc. And on the other end of the spectrum, bands who Kept It Simple, Stupid, and eschewed displays of virtuosity/musicianship - Ramones, Sex Pistols, New York Dolls, etc.
Both are valid, and work when extensions of the artists creating them.
Hard rock bands typically had a foot in each camp. Led Zeppelin wrote the book on 4/4 blues-based rock, yet could still pull of complex arrangements like Stairway to Heaven, Over the Hills, etc. Same with the Who. Loud, heavy rock was no issue, but they also dealt with more sophisticated tunes excellently.
Compared to peers in the more musician-leaning group, Kiss was never in their league, or close to it. On a purely musical level, Hotel California alone supersedes anything Kiss could ever dream of writing.
Kiss subconsciously knew this, hence Paul's comment, "You listen to Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, not me." Also, Gene's criticism of Bruce playing too much like a trained musician when he joined. And their insecurity really manifested in trying to make the Elder.
On the other hand, compared to bands more in their league, Kiss was the best. Problems arise when comparing, because for the most part, the other bands never achieved meaningful mainstream acceptance.
I'm reading books on Mozart, and it's problematic in that different authors have contrasting views. And since there is no video evidence, we won't ever really know.
But we don't have that problem with Kiss. People constantly try to revise history, but video evidence lets us draw our own conclusions.
Kiss' performance of She on the Midnight Special was a revelation. For gritty, dirty rock and roll, I would take that over any other band. The drum/bass breakdown in the middle is sublime. Peter and Gene are as tight as any rhythm section, Peter relaxes the tempo ever so slightly, and when Paul and Ace come back in, it sounds like the world exploded. Had that been aired at an earlier slot, it would have had similar impact of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 18, 2024 16:14:35 GMT -5
There were two opposing camps in the 70's. Bands whose sole focus was songwriting and musicianship - Eagles, Steely Dan, Yes, Rush, etc. And on the other end of the spectrum, bands who Kept It Simple, Stupid, and eschewed displays of virtuosity/musicianship - Ramones, Sex Pistols, New York Dolls, etc. Both are valid, and work when extensions of the artists creating them. Hard rock bands typically had a foot in each camp. Led Zeppelin wrote the book on 4/4 blues-based rock, yet could still pull of complex arrangements like Stairway to Heaven, Over the Hills, etc. Same with the Who. Loud, heavy rock was no issue, but they also dealt with more sophisticated tunes excellently. Compared to peers in the more musician-leaning group, Kiss was never in their league, or close to it. On a purely musical level, Hotel California alone supersedes anything Kiss could ever dream of writing. Kiss subconsciously knew this, hence Paul's comment, "You listen to Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, not me." Also, Gene's criticism of Bruce playing too much like a trained musician when he joined. And their insecurity really manifested in trying to make the Elder. On the other hand, compared to bands more in their league, Kiss was the best. Problems arise when comparing, because for the most part, the other bands never achieved meaningful mainstream acceptance. I'm reading books on Mozart, and it's problematic in that different authors have contrasting views. And since there is no video evidence, we won't ever really know. But we don't have that problem with Kiss. People constantly try to revise history, but video evidence lets us draw our own conclusions. Kiss' performance of She on the Midnight Special was a revelation. For gritty, dirty rock and roll, I would take that over any other band. The drum/bass breakdown in the middle is sublime. Peter and Gene are as tight as any rhythm section, Peter relaxes the tempo ever so slightly, and when Paul and Ace come back in, it sounds like the world exploded. Had that been aired at an earlier slot, it would have had similar impact of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. I realize you grew up on KISS and were a fan of the band obviously as we first started talking on the FAQ, but despite any of the "magic" that made us KISS fans when we were kids, I figured you were going to be more critical of KISS vs. their direct hard rock contemporaries - especially in hindsight now. I mean Dressed To Kill vs. Toys In The Attic or Rock And Roll Over vs Boston - would you pick the KISS albums too? Not everything is revisionist history, but you often mention that in debates. Sometimes our adult brains are just able to see things for what they really are compared to our child/teenager brains when it was much more easier to have the wool pulled over our eyes so to speak or be easily impressed or dazzled by something that really isn't that great. I mean KISS wouldn't even have half the fans back in the 70's and would have been dropped if it wasn't for the makeup and show that was grabbing kids like comic book superheroes. I remember being blown away by the Peter Criss solo on Alive like it was greatest drum solo ever admittedly not knowing any better back then. Now it is still awesome and I love it, but when I briefly tried my hand taking drum lessons - I began talking with a lot of drummers and my teacher and they sort of woke me up and told me that while the solo is cool and is great in the context of the album - it is pretty much the most basic easiest thing that any drummer could play. Not to mention the same when I wanted my drum teacher to teach me the drumming of I Love It Loud that I thought was so cool. That's kind of what I mean with KISS. Impressive for children. Much less so and when you expand your horizons with other rock bands/artists as you grow up.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Feb 19, 2024 2:13:11 GMT -5
There were two opposing camps in the 70's. Bands whose sole focus was songwriting and musicianship - Eagles, Steely Dan, Yes, Rush, etc. And on the other end of the spectrum, bands who Kept It Simple, Stupid, and eschewed displays of virtuosity/musicianship - Ramones, Sex Pistols, New York Dolls, etc. Both are valid, and work when extensions of the artists creating them. Hard rock bands typically had a foot in each camp. Led Zeppelin wrote the book on 4/4 blues-based rock, yet could still pull of complex arrangements like Stairway to Heaven, Over the Hills, etc. Same with the Who. Loud, heavy rock was no issue, but they also dealt with more sophisticated tunes excellently. Compared to peers in the more musician-leaning group, Kiss was never in their league, or close to it. On a purely musical level, Hotel California alone supersedes anything Kiss could ever dream of writing. Kiss subconsciously knew this, hence Paul's comment, "You listen to Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, not me." Also, Gene's criticism of Bruce playing too much like a trained musician when he joined. And their insecurity really manifested in trying to make the Elder. On the other hand, compared to bands more in their league, Kiss was the best. Problems arise when comparing, because for the most part, the other bands never achieved meaningful mainstream acceptance. I'm reading books on Mozart, and it's problematic in that different authors have contrasting views. And since there is no video evidence, we won't ever really know. But we don't have that problem with Kiss. People constantly try to revise history, but video evidence lets us draw our own conclusions. Kiss' performance of She on the Midnight Special was a revelation. For gritty, dirty rock and roll, I would take that over any other band. The drum/bass breakdown in the middle is sublime. Peter and Gene are as tight as any rhythm section, Peter relaxes the tempo ever so slightly, and when Paul and Ace come back in, it sounds like the world exploded. Had that been aired at an earlier slot, it would have had similar impact of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. I realize you grew up on KISS and were a fan of the band obviously as we first started talking on the FAQ, but despite any of the "magic" that made us KISS fans when we were kids, I figured you were going to be more critical of KISS vs. their direct hard rock contemporaries - especially in hindsight now. I mean Dressed To Kill vs. Toys In The Attic or Rock And Roll Over vs Boston - would you pick the KISS albums too? Not everything is revisionist history, but you often mention that in debates. Sometimes our adult brains are just able to see things for what they really are compared to our child/teenager brains when it was much more easier to have the wool pulled over our eyes so to speak or be easily impressed or dazzled by something that really isn't that great. I mean KISS wouldn't even have half the fans back in the 70's and would have been dropped if it wasn't for the makeup and show that was grabbing kids like comic book superheroes. I remember being blown away by the Peter Criss solo on Alive like it was greatest drum solo ever admittedly not knowing any better back then. Now it is still awesome and I love it, but when I briefly tried my hand taking drum lessons - I began talking with a lot of drummers and my teacher and they sort of woke me up and told me that while the solo is cool and is great in the context of the album - it is pretty much the most basic easiest thing that any drummer could play. Not to mention the same when I wanted my drum teacher to teach me the drumming of I Love It Loud that I thought was so cool. That's kind of what I mean with KISS. Impressive for children. Much less so and when you expand your horizons with other rock bands/artists as you grow up. We're not in disagreement. Musically Kiss is nowhere near Boston; neither are the Ramones, but no one cares. It's only an issue with Kiss because they were on the same level in terms of commercial success. There is a lot revisionist history. Of course the biggest culprit is Vinnie saved Kiss. Most at kissfaq don't buy the far-out revisionist notion that disco ended due to some homophobic outrage, thus hurting Kiss after IWMFLY, but that's another. I even read someone claiming Kiss concerts were packed with hot women throwing themselves at the band. The back cover of Alive disagrees, as do all the bootlegs and concerts I attended. There's lots more. I also mention context a lot. If we compare Kiss musically to Boston, Steely Dan, etc., we are taking things way out of context. That's where revisionism starts rearing its ugly head. Anyone with an ear can hear Kiss aren't in the same ballpark. It's similar to my musician friends who constantly gave me grief for digging Green Day, because they were nowhere near Dream Theater. Incidentally it's also what Quincy was referring to with his incendiary remarks about the Beatles and Hendrix. Hendrix wasn't in the same stratosphere as the jazz players at the session Quincy invited Hendrix to (which he smartly no-showed). It doesn't lessen Hendrix's impact; it just adds a touch of reality to the over-the-top hero worship. I get it, a world without heroes is no place to be. But as long as we keep things in context, we can view things in the proper perspective. Musically compared to their peers in Eagles, Steely Dan, Yes, etc. Kiss are far behind; compared to their peers in Ramones, New York Dolls, etc., I prefer Kiss. And pre-kiddie stuff, Kiss was a formidable rock band. I know most music teachers are condescending toward 'lesser' music, but I was never that way. Whatever way say in hindsight, the video evidence speaks for itself:
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 19, 2024 10:53:29 GMT -5
I realize you grew up on KISS and were a fan of the band obviously as we first started talking on the FAQ, but despite any of the "magic" that made us KISS fans when we were kids, I figured you were going to be more critical of KISS vs. their direct hard rock contemporaries - especially in hindsight now. I mean Dressed To Kill vs. Toys In The Attic or Rock And Roll Over vs Boston - would you pick the KISS albums too? Not everything is revisionist history, but you often mention that in debates. Sometimes our adult brains are just able to see things for what they really are compared to our child/teenager brains when it was much more easier to have the wool pulled over our eyes so to speak or be easily impressed or dazzled by something that really isn't that great. I mean KISS wouldn't even have half the fans back in the 70's and would have been dropped if it wasn't for the makeup and show that was grabbing kids like comic book superheroes. I remember being blown away by the Peter Criss solo on Alive like it was greatest drum solo ever admittedly not knowing any better back then. Now it is still awesome and I love it, but when I briefly tried my hand taking drum lessons - I began talking with a lot of drummers and my teacher and they sort of woke me up and told me that while the solo is cool and is great in the context of the album - it is pretty much the most basic easiest thing that any drummer could play. Not to mention the same when I wanted my drum teacher to teach me the drumming of I Love It Loud that I thought was so cool. That's kind of what I mean with KISS. Impressive for children. Much less so and when you expand your horizons with other rock bands/artists as you grow up. We're not in disagreement. Musically Kiss is nowhere near Boston; neither are the Ramones, but no one cares. It's only an issue with Kiss because they were on the same level in terms of commercial success. There is a lot revisionist history. Of course the biggest culprit is Vinnie saved Kiss. Most at kissfaq don't buy the far-out revisionist notion that disco ended due to some homophobic outrage, thus hurting Kiss after IWMFLY, but that's another. I even read someone claiming Kiss concerts were packed with hot women throwing themselves at the band. The back cover of Alive disagrees, as do all the bootlegs and concerts I attended. There's lots more. I also mention context a lot. If we compare Kiss musically to Boston, Steely Dan, etc., we are taking things way out of context. That's where revisionism starts rearing its ugly head. Anyone with an ear can hear Kiss aren't in the same ballpark. It's similar to my musician friends who constantly gave me grief for digging Green Day, because they were nowhere near Dream Theater. Incidentally it's also what Quincy was referring to with his incendiary remarks about the Beatles and Hendrix. Hendrix wasn't in the same stratosphere as the jazz players at the session Quincy invited Hendrix to (which he smartly no-showed). It doesn't lessen Hendrix's impact; it just adds a touch of reality to the over-the-top hero worship. I get it, a world without heroes is no place to be. But as long as we keep things in context, we can view things in the proper perspective. Musically compared to their peers in Eagles, Steely Dan, Yes, etc. Kiss are far behind; compared to their peers in Ramones, New York Dolls, etc., I prefer Kiss. And pre-kiddie stuff, Kiss was a formidable rock band. I know most music teachers are condescending toward 'lesser' music, but I was never that way. Whatever way say in hindsight, the video evidence speaks for itself: Yes, the She clip is awesome - however that was a VERY BRIEF window of time where KISS were "dangerous", tight and hungry. It didn't last. I am not really sure why you are even bringing up the Ramones, New York Dolls or even Steely Dan for that matter. Those are not KISS' contemporaries being discussed here. Aerosmith is. Along with many other commercial hard rock bands of the 70's - that would now be deemed classic rock. This also isn't really about musicianship either - but songs, songwriting and production. Musicianship would be secondary. How does Dressed To Kill compare to Toys In The Attic as a whole and so forth with other albums during the 70's vs what their direct contemporaries released that same year - AC/DC, etc. How does Boston compare to Rock And Roll Over in terms of the songs. Not just comparing individual musicianship. A band could have average or even not very good musicians, but write great songs. I believe you would make this case for Poison. By the way, there was a mass exodus of KISS fans after Dynasty came out because of the notion that KISS made a disco album. That isn't revisionist history despite the fact that I Was Made For Loving You made it's mark with the general public. Dynasty to The Elder - KISS was in the toilet with their fan base have left them for other hard rock bands that actually made hard rock albums - not disco, pop and a poor man's prog rock album which I love by the way. Creatures was too little too late, hence the notion right or wrong that KISS needed saving and Vinnie did that or taking the make up did that, etc. What also isn't revisionist history is that tons of KISS fans have told the same story. They were surrounded by people who told them that KISS sucked. That you almost had to hide the fact that you loved KISS, because your own friends and people at school would mock and bully you for liking this shitty band. I experienced that as well. KISS make the lists even now of the most hated bands. Hell my own wife thinks they suck and that is the ONE part of me that she just doesn't get - when otherwise she thinks I have great taste in music. Just to clarify - my teacher and other drummers I met during that time weren't dismissing KISS or belittling them, but more educating me and sort of helping me to not look like an idiot if I was to walk in a room proclaiming that the Peter Criss solo on Alive or Eric Carr's drumming on Creatures was top 10 best drumming of all time kind of stuff. Because at the time, I believed this was mind blowing drumming like it was Neil Peart level stuff. They were more than happy to actually teach me how to play KISS songs.
|
|
|
Post by KISS79 on Feb 19, 2024 11:17:24 GMT -5
I have always maintained that despite my growing up on KISS and loving them - you could pretty much take any year in KISS' existence and other bands were making far better albums. Alive! would be the one exception. Even with the KISS albums that I love - the general idea is that it is great for KISS, but would be a decline for any other band if they made that album, because they took album making far more seriously than KISS, took the time to write great songs and hired the best people to achieve great results. KISS' album making model for the most part was fast, cheap and half-assed with too few exceptions to that model. So out of curiosity, I listened to the FAQ podcast doing a battle of KISS albums vs. other 70's albums. I do know going in that this is a KISS podcast on a KISS forum, so I should expect some KISS ballwashing, but I was hoping that there would be some surprising objectivity to be found here and there was some - from the Canadian guy and Love Gun vs. AC/DC's Let There Be Rock, but there were the expected what the fuck are you talking about kind of views here as well. KISS' debut isn't the masterpiece some KISS fans make it out to be. Yes, it has many classic KISS songs, but who gives a shit about that - they weren't actually hits. The album is dull, lifeless, flat, poorly produced and performed. The exact opposite of Deep Purple's Burn. Those great KISS songs are far better and really come to the life on Alive! You don't even need to own the KISS debut. Alive! or even Double Platinum will do. Now fine - people may say they prefer KISS to Deep Purple, even a Deep Purple with new members David Coverdale and Glenn Hughes, but comparing albums and thinking KISS delivered over Purple is laughable. I know Steve would agree with me here - Boston vs. Rock And Roll Over? Get the fuck out of here. The Boston debut buries Rock And Roll Over in every possible way known to man and I say that as someone who loves Rock And Roll Over and got into KISS because of that album, but the difference is that I can love something and still be objective about it. KISS wishes they could make an album like the Boston debut, but Boston is far beyond what KISS was ever capable of achieving. Dressed To Kill vs Toys In The Attic? Come on. Does anything really need to be said here? One of the greatest albums in rock history vs. the third album by KISS, where they were already out of ideas with the recording of the scraps they had left and Wicked Lester songs with the label manager producing the album. Having said that, I really enjoy Dressed To Kill. She And Love Her All I Can are among my favorite KISS songs ironically since they were Wicked Lester songs, but let's be real here as a whole when comparing albums. I know what some people might think or say. Well if YOU love the album, then it is the better to you over what other bands were doing. Ya, that's nice - fuck off. Again, I love all sorts of bands, albums, movies, whatever, but I can still be objective about them. To be honest, I don't even like Aerosmith much and certainly listen to an album like Dressed To Kill far more than Toys In The Attic, but if I was involved in such a podcast like the KISSFAQ one, I would have to say that while I may prefer DTK, I would also have to add in this to the discussion - who are we kidding though, Toys In The Attic is far better and the world would be laughing at us for saying otherwise. The truth hurts sometimes. KISS is stage show, makeup, merchandising and gimmick first. The music was secondary. And please don't give me your bullshit that KISS wouldn't have lasted for 50 years if they didn't have the songs. They barely have any real hits and the general public couldn't name 5 KISS songs if there was a gun pointed at their child's head. So yes - style, die hard KISS fans willing to spend tons of money on crap and the general public wanting to see the big show has maintained KISS for decades over any sort of real substance that the band was able to achieve when it comes to the music. KISS was supposed to be a gateway band to better bands in many cases. Many people bailed on KISS when they realized that. I have mostly stuck with KISS despite what may be perceived here as bashing KISS. Certainly there have been low points in my fandom. Everyone knows my disdain for Hide Your Heart and my almost checking out of KISS then and of course the last 20 years of two nobodies pretending to be Ace and Peter in addition to the lip syncing have just been an embarrassing and pathetic time for the band - despite Paul and Gene's accountants being happy. KISS have been a very important part of my life, but even with that, I can still be objective about them. I find that too many KISS fans are not able to be objective at all and so any sort of discussion or comparisons made among KISS fans is often just ridiculous. That's my view anyway. I think HOTTER THAN HELL is just as good as anything or on par with in 1974. in 1978 VAN HALEN blew the fucking doors off the industry & changed things, In 1979 while I like DYNASTY and they DYANSTY TOUR is 1 of the best stages the LP compared to VH 2, Highway To Hell, Unleashed In The East I wasnt there but my family said it was kinda embarassing when you had to fly the flag of IWMFLYou and say with a straight face that it was as good/better than Highway To Hell, Green Malashi etc etc. Then you get 1980/81 and this is where KISS fans left in droves, Hell they played 1 North American show in 1980 and Zero in 1981 when they released UNMASKED/ELDER (Now I like a few songs off those) but compare that with Back In Black, Killers, British Steel, Point Of Entry, Ace Of Spades, Fair Warning, Animal Magnetism, Blizzard Of Ozz, High n Dry, 4 Those About To Rock, Allied Forces, No Sleep Til Hammsermith, Moving Pictures, Come n Get It, Breaking The Chains etc etc. So put on "JUST A BOY" from The ELDER and put it against ANY song on 1 of those LPs and you'll see why KISS fans (most anyway) said we will see you later when you have something great and fortunately CREATURES came out and it was like PHEW our KISS is back but it took a long time before fans were forgiving.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Feb 19, 2024 16:44:37 GMT -5
We're not in disagreement. Musically Kiss is nowhere near Boston; neither are the Ramones, but no one cares. It's only an issue with Kiss because they were on the same level in terms of commercial success. There is a lot revisionist history. Of course the biggest culprit is Vinnie saved Kiss. Most at kissfaq don't buy the far-out revisionist notion that disco ended due to some homophobic outrage, thus hurting Kiss after IWMFLY, but that's another. I even read someone claiming Kiss concerts were packed with hot women throwing themselves at the band. The back cover of Alive disagrees, as do all the bootlegs and concerts I attended. There's lots more. I also mention context a lot. If we compare Kiss musically to Boston, Steely Dan, etc., we are taking things way out of context. That's where revisionism starts rearing its ugly head. Anyone with an ear can hear Kiss aren't in the same ballpark. It's similar to my musician friends who constantly gave me grief for digging Green Day, because they were nowhere near Dream Theater. Incidentally it's also what Quincy was referring to with his incendiary remarks about the Beatles and Hendrix. Hendrix wasn't in the same stratosphere as the jazz players at the session Quincy invited Hendrix to (which he smartly no-showed). It doesn't lessen Hendrix's impact; it just adds a touch of reality to the over-the-top hero worship. I get it, a world without heroes is no place to be. But as long as we keep things in context, we can view things in the proper perspective. Musically compared to their peers in Eagles, Steely Dan, Yes, etc. Kiss are far behind; compared to their peers in Ramones, New York Dolls, etc., I prefer Kiss. And pre-kiddie stuff, Kiss was a formidable rock band. I know most music teachers are condescending toward 'lesser' music, but I was never that way. Whatever way say in hindsight, the video evidence speaks for itself: Yes, the She clip is awesome - however that was a VERY BRIEF window of time where KISS were "dangerous", tight and hungry. It didn't last. I am not really sure why you are even bringing up the Ramones, New York Dolls or even Steely Dan for that matter. Those are not KISS' contemporaries being discussed here. Aerosmith is. Along with many other commercial hard rock bands of the 70's - that would now be deemed classic rock. This also isn't really about musicianship either - but songs, songwriting and production. Musicianship would be secondary. How does Dressed To Kill compare to Toys In The Attic as a whole and so forth with other albums during the 70's vs what their direct contemporaries released that same year - AC/DC, etc. How does Boston compare to Rock And Roll Over in terms of the songs. Not just comparing individual musicianship. A band could have average or even not very good musicians, but write great songs. I believe you would make this case for Poison. By the way, there was a mass exodus of KISS fans after Dynasty came out because of the notion that KISS made a disco album. That isn't revisionist history despite the fact that I Was Made For Loving You made it's mark with the general public. Dynasty to The Elder - KISS was in the toilet with their fan base have left them for other hard rock bands that actually made hard rock albums - not disco, pop and a poor man's prog rock album which I love by the way. Creatures was too little too late, hence the notion right or wrong that KISS needed saving and Vinnie did that or taking the make up did that, etc. What also isn't revisionist history is that tons of KISS fans have told the same story. They were surrounded by people who told them that KISS sucked. That you almost had to hide the fact that you loved KISS, because your own friends and people at school would mock and bully you for liking this shitty band. I experienced that as well. KISS make the lists even now of the most hated bands. Hell my own wife thinks they suck and that is the ONE part of me that she just doesn't get - when otherwise she thinks I have great taste in music. Just to clarify - my teacher and other drummers I met during that time weren't dismissing KISS or belittling them, but more educating me and sort of helping me to not look like an idiot if I was to walk in a room proclaiming that the Peter Criss solo on Alive or Eric Carr's drumming on Creatures was top 10 best drumming of all time kind of stuff. Because at the time, I believed this was mind blowing drumming like it was Neil Peart level stuff. They were more than happy to actually teach me how to play KISS songs. Again, in the big picture, we are in agreement. Our only differences are in the details. KISS79 summed it up very well. Kiss was not as 'good' (whatever that means) as their contemporaries in the 70's; but the gap is nowhere near as wide as I imagine you see it. Yes, Aerosmith is 'better,' but Kiss was not far behind, as the video evidence demonstrates. (I actually think Kiss' Midnight Special was better than Aerosmith's.) Before Kiss self-destructed, they were a kick-ass 4/4 rock band; something I had somewhat forgotten before the Midnight Special clips surfaced. IWMFLY wasn't the problem for Kiss; it's what they followed it up with, as well as the timing. Miss You didn't kill the Stones' career. Do Ya Think I'm Sexy didn't crater Rod Stewart's career. In fact, they were seen as fun diversions. Throughout music history there have been Golden Eras and Not-So-Golden Eras; and they can only be seen in hindsight. Hindsight shows the early 80's was a Golden Era not only for rock, but pop and dance music, as well. The whole disco/homophobe angle is revisionist history. No one even used that word back then, every one knew Freddie Mercury was gay, everyone knew about Elton John, and if you were in rock circles, it was no secret about Rob Halford. Point being, no one cared, especially if we're talking about a behind the scenes manager like Bill Aucoin, who we barely knew existed at the time. Kiss' issue wasn't IWMFLY - it was Unmasked, The Elder, and what they were competing with at the time. Put aside the explosion of brilliant, forward-thinking MTV artists. Just in rock, a HUGE chapter of rock history was being written, and at least two albums at a time. Van Halen - Women and Children First, Fair Warning Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard of Oz, Diary of a Madman Def Leppard - High n Dry, Pyromania AC/DC - Back in Black, For Those About to Rock Judas Priest - British Steel, (Point of Entry), Screaming for Vengeance Black Sabbath - Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules And the mythical 'Kiss kids' were buying those albums in droves. (As they did the Poison debut with its gender-bending cover in '86, which was a really short time for young people to allegedly get so 'woke.' It's a fictitious angle.) Would anyone put Unmasked and The Elder in the same category? They aren't bad albums, but as Lars mentioned about timing, Kiss' timing couldn't have been worse. Kiss was close to their contemporaries in the 70's, but the gulf was enormous in the 80's. IWFMLY became a convenient scapegoat, especially when people attempt to view past events through a current social lens. But that wasn't the issue. Like the Stones and Rod Stewart, they could have easily gotten past that. A global hit song, platinum album, and arena tour during a recession can't hurt a band.
And yes, as the 80's progressed, the gulf sadly widened.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 19, 2024 17:39:58 GMT -5
Yes, the She clip is awesome - however that was a VERY BRIEF window of time where KISS were "dangerous", tight and hungry. It didn't last. I am not really sure why you are even bringing up the Ramones, New York Dolls or even Steely Dan for that matter. Those are not KISS' contemporaries being discussed here. Aerosmith is. Along with many other commercial hard rock bands of the 70's - that would now be deemed classic rock. This also isn't really about musicianship either - but songs, songwriting and production. Musicianship would be secondary. How does Dressed To Kill compare to Toys In The Attic as a whole and so forth with other albums during the 70's vs what their direct contemporaries released that same year - AC/DC, etc. How does Boston compare to Rock And Roll Over in terms of the songs. Not just comparing individual musicianship. A band could have average or even not very good musicians, but write great songs. I believe you would make this case for Poison. By the way, there was a mass exodus of KISS fans after Dynasty came out because of the notion that KISS made a disco album. That isn't revisionist history despite the fact that I Was Made For Loving You made it's mark with the general public. Dynasty to The Elder - KISS was in the toilet with their fan base have left them for other hard rock bands that actually made hard rock albums - not disco, pop and a poor man's prog rock album which I love by the way. Creatures was too little too late, hence the notion right or wrong that KISS needed saving and Vinnie did that or taking the make up did that, etc. What also isn't revisionist history is that tons of KISS fans have told the same story. They were surrounded by people who told them that KISS sucked. That you almost had to hide the fact that you loved KISS, because your own friends and people at school would mock and bully you for liking this shitty band. I experienced that as well. KISS make the lists even now of the most hated bands. Hell my own wife thinks they suck and that is the ONE part of me that she just doesn't get - when otherwise she thinks I have great taste in music. Just to clarify - my teacher and other drummers I met during that time weren't dismissing KISS or belittling them, but more educating me and sort of helping me to not look like an idiot if I was to walk in a room proclaiming that the Peter Criss solo on Alive or Eric Carr's drumming on Creatures was top 10 best drumming of all time kind of stuff. Because at the time, I believed this was mind blowing drumming like it was Neil Peart level stuff. They were more than happy to actually teach me how to play KISS songs. Again, in the big picture, we are in agreement. Our only differences are in the details. KISS79 summed it up very well. Kiss was not as 'good' (whatever that means) as their contemporaries in the 70's; but the gap is nowhere near as wide as I imagine you see it. Yes, Aerosmith is 'better,' but Kiss was not far behind, as the video evidence demonstrates. (I actually think Kiss' Midnight Special was better than Aerosmith's.) Before Kiss self-destructed, they were a kick-ass 4/4 rock band; something I had somewhat forgotten before the Midnight Special clips surfaced. IWMFLY wasn't the problem for Kiss; it's what they followed it up with, as well as the timing. Miss You didn't kill the Stones' career. Do Ya Think I'm Sexy didn't crater Rod Stewart's career. In fact, they were seen as fun diversions. Throughout music history there have been Golden Eras and Not-So-Golden Eras; and they can only be seen in hindsight. Hindsight shows the early 80's was a Golden Era not only for rock, but pop and dance music, as well. The whole disco/homophobe angle is revisionist history. No one even used that word back then, every one knew Freddie Mercury was gay, everyone knew about Elton John, and if you were in rock circles, it was no secret about Rob Halford. Point being, no one cared, especially if we're talking about a behind the scenes manager like Bill Aucoin, who we barely knew existed at the time. Kiss' issue wasn't IWMFLY - it was Unmasked, The Elder, and what they were competing with at the time. Put aside the explosion of brilliant, forward-thinking MTV artists. Just in rock, a HUGE chapter of rock history was being written, and at least two albums at a time. Van Halen - Women and Children First, Fair Warning Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard of Oz, Diary of a Madman Def Leppard - High n Dry, Pyromania AC/DC - Back in Black, For Those About to Rock Judas Priest - British Steel, (Point of Entry), Screaming for Vengeance Black Sabbath - Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules And the mythical 'Kiss kids' were buying those albums in droves. (As they did the Poison debut with its gender-bending cover in '86, which was a really short time for young people to allegedly get so 'woke.' It's a fictitious angle.) Would anyone put Unmasked and The Elder in the same category? They aren't bad albums, but as Lars mentioned about timing, Kiss' timing couldn't have been worse. Kiss was close to their contemporaries in the 70's, but the gulf was enormous in the 80's. IWFMLY became a convenient scapegoat, especially when people attempt to view past events through a current social lens. But that wasn't the issue. Like the Stones and Rod Stewart, they could have easily gotten past that. A global hit song, platinum album, and arena tour during a recession can't hurt a band.
And yes, as the 80's progressed, the gulf sadly widened.
I have to correct you. It was Dynasty that caused the fan exodus at the time. This has been discussed endlessly with that album being their disco album and it was what I experienced in my own bubble at the time as well. Unmasked and The Elder were just strike two and three for KISS. Had KISS released a Creatures like album as the follow up to Dynasty - they could have had a potential comeback, but by the time Creatures actually came out - it was too little too late. KISS is a hard rock band. It is more understandable that say The Stones or Rod Stewart or even Queen could release disco type songs and the general public fan base isn't going to bail. If AC/DC or Aerosmith or insert whatever hard rock band you want had released I Was Made - there would be massive backlash there too in 1979. Not specifically due to any sort of gay context with disco - although I am sure it is the case for some many people, but because hard rock fans don't want their fave bands releasing disco songs especially when they were dark, heavy and "dangerous" a few albums prior. Just as I am sure some die hard Metallica fans didn't want them making an album for general public consumption with The Black Album. Let's also not go overboard on the gay acceptance. America is incredibly homophobic in many ways - regardless if the word existed then or not. Gay marriage was only legalized in 2015 in the US and there is growing support to reverse that now. Halford has discussed the homophobia he received at the time he came out. It may be obvious now in hindsight, but many fans didn't know he was gay. Same with some other "obviously" gay rock stars. That is revisionist history. You may have been a more open minded music fan at the time - loving disco and pop, but a lot of hard rock fans are pretty closed minded and only like hard rock, metal and rock. You are comparing apples and oranges here. It was not revisionist history in KISS' case. KISS fans didn't love I Was Made and Dynasty, but the pop rock follow up was too far for them and that's when they bailed. You are wrong there. The exodus happened with Dynasty, especially considering that Van Halen released their debut a year prior. You still seem to be focusing on performance/musicianship over the albums as a whole. You acknowledge that sure Aerosmith is "better" than KISS, but the gap isn't that wide - just look at this She clip. What you should be comparing is Dressed To Kill vs. Toys In The Attic. Can you do that?
|
|
|
Post by KISS79 on Feb 19, 2024 17:59:05 GMT -5
Oh ya DYNASTY the fans started to go but by UNMASKED/ELDER it was over, The DYNASTY tour they played 85 shows or so and it did well even though some people say no. I think there was 12,000+ people at the Vancouver show, If you have a copy of KISS ALIVE FOREVER (I do not own a copy but want 2 get 1 one day). The DYNASTY STAGE was awesome, but ya when IWMFLYou came out and you compared it to VH/PRIEST/MAIDEN etc etc it was like WTF? Of course I love everything KISS has put out but 4 what I been told in 1979 the fans started to leave in droves and by 81 gone.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Feb 19, 2024 22:36:48 GMT -5
Again, in the big picture, we are in agreement. Our only differences are in the details. KISS79 summed it up very well. Kiss was not as 'good' (whatever that means) as their contemporaries in the 70's; but the gap is nowhere near as wide as I imagine you see it. Yes, Aerosmith is 'better,' but Kiss was not far behind, as the video evidence demonstrates. (I actually think Kiss' Midnight Special was better than Aerosmith's.) Before Kiss self-destructed, they were a kick-ass 4/4 rock band; something I had somewhat forgotten before the Midnight Special clips surfaced. IWMFLY wasn't the problem for Kiss; it's what they followed it up with, as well as the timing. Miss You didn't kill the Stones' career. Do Ya Think I'm Sexy didn't crater Rod Stewart's career. In fact, they were seen as fun diversions. Throughout music history there have been Golden Eras and Not-So-Golden Eras; and they can only be seen in hindsight. Hindsight shows the early 80's was a Golden Era not only for rock, but pop and dance music, as well. The whole disco/homophobe angle is revisionist history. No one even used that word back then, every one knew Freddie Mercury was gay, everyone knew about Elton John, and if you were in rock circles, it was no secret about Rob Halford. Point being, no one cared, especially if we're talking about a behind the scenes manager like Bill Aucoin, who we barely knew existed at the time. Kiss' issue wasn't IWMFLY - it was Unmasked, The Elder, and what they were competing with at the time. Put aside the explosion of brilliant, forward-thinking MTV artists. Just in rock, a HUGE chapter of rock history was being written, and at least two albums at a time. Van Halen - Women and Children First, Fair Warning Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard of Oz, Diary of a Madman Def Leppard - High n Dry, Pyromania AC/DC - Back in Black, For Those About to Rock Judas Priest - British Steel, (Point of Entry), Screaming for Vengeance Black Sabbath - Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules And the mythical 'Kiss kids' were buying those albums in droves. (As they did the Poison debut with its gender-bending cover in '86, which was a really short time for young people to allegedly get so 'woke.' It's a fictitious angle.) Would anyone put Unmasked and The Elder in the same category? They aren't bad albums, but as Lars mentioned about timing, Kiss' timing couldn't have been worse. Kiss was close to their contemporaries in the 70's, but the gulf was enormous in the 80's. IWFMLY became a convenient scapegoat, especially when people attempt to view past events through a current social lens. But that wasn't the issue. Like the Stones and Rod Stewart, they could have easily gotten past that. A global hit song, platinum album, and arena tour during a recession can't hurt a band.
And yes, as the 80's progressed, the gulf sadly widened.
I have to correct you. It was Dynasty that caused the fan exodus at the time. This has been discussed endlessly with that album being their disco album and it was what I experienced in my own bubble at the time as well. Unmasked and The Elder were just strike two and three for KISS. Had KISS released a Creatures like album as the follow up to Dynasty - they could have had a potential comeback, but by the time Creatures actually came out - it was too little too late. KISS is a hard rock band. It is more understandable that say The Stones or Rod Stewart or even Queen could release disco type songs and the general public fan base isn't going to bail. If AC/DC or Aerosmith or insert whatever hard rock band you want had released I Was Made - there would be massive backlash there too in 1979. Not specifically due to any sort of gay context with disco - although I am sure it is the case for some many people, but because hard rock fans don't want their fave bands releasing disco songs especially when they were dark, heavy and "dangerous" a few albums prior. Just as I am sure some die hard Metallica fans didn't want them making an album for general public consumption with The Black Album. Let's also not go overboard on the gay acceptance. America is incredibly homophobic in many ways - regardless if the word existed then or not. Gay marriage was only legalized in 2015 in the US and there is growing support to reverse that now. Halford has discussed the homophobia he received at the time he came out. It may be obvious now in hindsight, but many fans didn't know he was gay. Same with some other "obviously" gay rock stars. That is revisionist history. You may have been a more open minded music fan at the time - loving disco and pop, but a lot of hard rock fans are pretty closed minded and only like hard rock, metal and rock. You are comparing apples and oranges here. It was not revisionist history in KISS' case. KISS fans didn't love I Was Made and Dynasty, but the pop rock follow up was too far for them and that's when they bailed. You are wrong there. The exodus happened with Dynasty, especially considering that Van Halen released their debut a year prior. You still seem to be focusing on performance/musicianship over the albums as a whole. You acknowledge that sure Aerosmith is "better" than KISS, but the gap isn't that wide - just look at this She clip. What you should be comparing is Dressed To Kill vs. Toys In The Attic. Can you do that? It's still a false narrative, attempting to see past events through a modern lens. Well before IWMFLY, Kiss released the solo albums, which bombed miserably and essentially bankrupted their record company when all the unsold records were returned. They exacerbated the problem by slapping a Kiss logo on everything imaginable, including lunch boxes, board games, and Barbie-type dolls. Then they tripled down with the ill-advised Meets the Phantom of the Park. I don't believe the Kiss Army was on board with The Demon croaking When You Wish Upon a Star, Peter wanting to be an R & B crooner, every kid at school having a Kiss lunch box, the utterly embarrassing and childish KMTPOTP; but then a global hit that had a slight disco influence made them all jump ship? IWMFLY is a convenient scapegoat, but what really happened isn't that simple. Look, I listen to disco on a daily basis. IWMFLY has a disco element, but it is far from typical disco fare. There are constant sixteenth notes on a distorted guitar throughout the song, of which Ace has even said made his hand hurt playing. What other disco song has that? There are distorted power chords in the chorus, a rock guitar solo, and a driving drum beat. Sure it's 126 BPM and has four-on-the-floor kick drum at the beginning, so it worked on the dance floor. But so does lots of rock songs. You talk about how hair metal had become a parody, thus leading to its 'death.' The same happened with disco. It not only had become formulaic, we were getting parodies (Disco Duck), goofiness (Village People), and it simply was time for a change. The whole gay angle had nothing to do with it. Just look how quickly after Boy George became a global superstar. It not only didn't hurt him, it helped him. Did you ever see the sleeve to Motley Crue's Theater of Pain? Vince is wearing pink spandex, a garter belt, and his hair and makeup look totally feminine. I loved it at the time and even emulated it. Yet these same fans who couldn't 'tolerate' IWMFLY somehow didn't mind that, and bought millions of copies? I'm all for calling out bigotry and homophobia. But when people attach those sentiments to past events that were never rooted in them, it's does a disservice to actual events that should be called out. I agree, rock fans are not open to pop and disco; but I find that to be way worse today than in 1979-80. I'll review Toys in the Attic; but I know over the years I've preferred Dressed to Kill. Hearing She for the first time in ages leads me to believe that won't change. That's a monster tune, as is Love Her All I Can.
|
|
|
Post by Margo Leadbetter on Feb 19, 2024 23:14:18 GMT -5
As seen on another board :
Fuck I hate Kisstards. They're like ignorant refugees scavenging through a dump, located next to a free food pantry. There's lots of available nutrition nearby, but they prefer the garbage because it's what they grew up on.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 19, 2024 23:25:56 GMT -5
I have to correct you. It was Dynasty that caused the fan exodus at the time. This has been discussed endlessly with that album being their disco album and it was what I experienced in my own bubble at the time as well. Unmasked and The Elder were just strike two and three for KISS. Had KISS released a Creatures like album as the follow up to Dynasty - they could have had a potential comeback, but by the time Creatures actually came out - it was too little too late. KISS is a hard rock band. It is more understandable that say The Stones or Rod Stewart or even Queen could release disco type songs and the general public fan base isn't going to bail. If AC/DC or Aerosmith or insert whatever hard rock band you want had released I Was Made - there would be massive backlash there too in 1979. Not specifically due to any sort of gay context with disco - although I am sure it is the case for some many people, but because hard rock fans don't want their fave bands releasing disco songs especially when they were dark, heavy and "dangerous" a few albums prior. Just as I am sure some die hard Metallica fans didn't want them making an album for general public consumption with The Black Album. Let's also not go overboard on the gay acceptance. America is incredibly homophobic in many ways - regardless if the word existed then or not. Gay marriage was only legalized in 2015 in the US and there is growing support to reverse that now. Halford has discussed the homophobia he received at the time he came out. It may be obvious now in hindsight, but many fans didn't know he was gay. Same with some other "obviously" gay rock stars. That is revisionist history. You may have been a more open minded music fan at the time - loving disco and pop, but a lot of hard rock fans are pretty closed minded and only like hard rock, metal and rock. You are comparing apples and oranges here. It was not revisionist history in KISS' case. KISS fans didn't love I Was Made and Dynasty, but the pop rock follow up was too far for them and that's when they bailed. You are wrong there. The exodus happened with Dynasty, especially considering that Van Halen released their debut a year prior. You still seem to be focusing on performance/musicianship over the albums as a whole. You acknowledge that sure Aerosmith is "better" than KISS, but the gap isn't that wide - just look at this She clip. What you should be comparing is Dressed To Kill vs. Toys In The Attic. Can you do that? It's still a false narrative, attempting to see past events through a modern lens. Well before IWMFLY, Kiss released the solo albums, which bombed miserably and essentially bankrupted their record company when all the unsold records were returned. They exacerbated the problem by slapping a Kiss logo on everything imaginable, including lunch boxes, board games, and Barbie-type dolls. Then they tripled down with the ill-advised Meets the Phantom of the Park. I don't believe the Kiss Army was on board with The Demon croaking When You Wish Upon a Star, Peter wanting to be an R & B crooner, every kid at school having a Kiss lunch box, the utterly embarrassing and childish KMTPOTP; but then a global hit that had a slight disco influence made them all jump ship? IWMFLY is a convenient scapegoat, but what really happened isn't that simple. Look, I listen to disco on a daily basis. IWMFLY has a disco element, but it is far from typical disco fare. There are constant sixteenth notes on a distorted guitar throughout the song, of which Ace has even said made his hand hurt playing. What other disco song has that? There are distorted power chords in the chorus, a rock guitar solo, and a driving drum beat. Sure it's 126 BPM and has four-on-the-floor kick drum at the beginning, so it worked on the dance floor. But so does lots of rock songs. You talk about how hair metal had become a parody, thus leading to its 'death.' The same happened with disco. It not only had become formulaic, we were getting parodies (Disco Duck), goofiness (Village People), and it simply was time for a change. The whole gay angle had nothing to do with it. Just look how quickly after Boy George became a global superstar. It not only didn't hurt him, it helped him. Did you ever see the sleeve to Motley Crue's Theater of Pain? Vince is wearing pink spandex, a garter belt, and his hair and makeup look totally feminine. I loved it at the time and even emulated it. Yet these same fans who couldn't 'tolerate' IWMFLY somehow didn't mind that, and bought millions of copies? I'm all for calling out bigotry and homophobia. But when people attach those sentiments to past events that were never rooted in them, it's does a disservice to actual events that should be called out. I agree, rock fans are not open to pop and disco; but I find that to be way worse today than in 1979-80. I'll review Toys in the Attic; but I know over the years I've preferred Dressed to Kill. Hearing She for the first time in ages leads me to believe that won't change. That's a monster tune, as is Love Her All I Can. It has nothing to do with seeing past events through a modern lens. Like at all. It was discussed at the time and Chris Lendt also spoke about Dynasty and the fan backlash then in KISS and Sell specifically related to that album and song. You are completely misremembering. KISS fans were still on board with the band and excited about them getting back together. Remember the last recorded material was Alive II Side 4 and that was heavy. Fans also loved the Paul and Ace albums - despite the disappointment with Gene and Peter's. They failed because they shipped a million copies of each. They would have failed even if all 4 albums were loved by fans. KISS are not big album sellers. That was a label fuck up. Not a band one or fans turning on KISS then. So despite the movie and solo albums and toys, KISS fans were ready for them to return - but once I Was Made was heard and the album overall, that is when KISS fans were done and the fan exodus began and KISS were in trouble. I assure you if you Dynasty was a full album version of Alive II/Side 4, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. You are also making comparisons that are completely irrelevant to each other and years apart when trends, styles and times changed from the 70's. Glam and looking like a chick became a thing in the 80's with rock and pop, but if Motley was doing 80's dance rock songs AND looking like chicks for Theater Of Pain, they would have been dropped due to fans bailing after Shout At The Devil. There was a connection to disco and homophobia back then. I am not saying it was the entirety of it, but a simple Google search show it was a factor on some level at the time with articles detailing events back then in this regard. I even remember the gay jokes with the Village People when I was a kid. We can probably meet somewhere in the middle there - it was a factor in certain parts of the country, but not an across the board thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Feb 20, 2024 0:21:12 GMT -5
It's still a false narrative, attempting to see past events through a modern lens. Well before IWMFLY, Kiss released the solo albums, which bombed miserably and essentially bankrupted their record company when all the unsold records were returned. They exacerbated the problem by slapping a Kiss logo on everything imaginable, including lunch boxes, board games, and Barbie-type dolls. Then they tripled down with the ill-advised Meets the Phantom of the Park. I don't believe the Kiss Army was on board with The Demon croaking When You Wish Upon a Star, Peter wanting to be an R & B crooner, every kid at school having a Kiss lunch box, the utterly embarrassing and childish KMTPOTP; but then a global hit that had a slight disco influence made them all jump ship? IWMFLY is a convenient scapegoat, but what really happened isn't that simple. Look, I listen to disco on a daily basis. IWMFLY has a disco element, but it is far from typical disco fare. There are constant sixteenth notes on a distorted guitar throughout the song, of which Ace has even said made his hand hurt playing. What other disco song has that? There are distorted power chords in the chorus, a rock guitar solo, and a driving drum beat. Sure it's 126 BPM and has four-on-the-floor kick drum at the beginning, so it worked on the dance floor. But so does lots of rock songs. You talk about how hair metal had become a parody, thus leading to its 'death.' The same happened with disco. It not only had become formulaic, we were getting parodies (Disco Duck), goofiness (Village People), and it simply was time for a change. The whole gay angle had nothing to do with it. Just look how quickly after Boy George became a global superstar. It not only didn't hurt him, it helped him. Did you ever see the sleeve to Motley Crue's Theater of Pain? Vince is wearing pink spandex, a garter belt, and his hair and makeup look totally feminine. I loved it at the time and even emulated it. Yet these same fans who couldn't 'tolerate' IWMFLY somehow didn't mind that, and bought millions of copies? I'm all for calling out bigotry and homophobia. But when people attach those sentiments to past events that were never rooted in them, it's does a disservice to actual events that should be called out. I agree, rock fans are not open to pop and disco; but I find that to be way worse today than in 1979-80. I'll review Toys in the Attic; but I know over the years I've preferred Dressed to Kill. Hearing She for the first time in ages leads me to believe that won't change. That's a monster tune, as is Love Her All I Can. It has nothing to do with seeing past events through a modern lens. Like at all. It was discussed at the time and Chris Lendt also spoke about Dynasty and the fan backlash then in KISS and Sell specifically related to that album and song. You are completely misremembering. KISS fans were still on board with the band and excited about them getting back together. Remember the last recorded material was Alive II Side 4 and that was heavy. Fans also loved the Paul and Ace albums - despite the disappointment with Gene and Peter's. They failed because they shipped a million copies of each. They would have failed even if all 4 albums were loved by fans. KISS are not big album sellers. That was a label fuck up. Not a band one or fans turning on KISS then. So despite the movie and solo albums and toys, KISS fans were ready for them to return - but once I Was Made was heard and the album overall, that is when KISS fans were done and the fan exodus began and KISS were in trouble. I assure you if you Dynasty was a full album version of Alive II/Side 4, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. You are also making comparisons that are completely irrelevant to each other and years apart when trends, styles and times changed from the 70's. Glam and looking like a chick became a thing in the 80's with rock and pop, but if Motley was doing 80's dance rock songs AND looking like chicks for Theater Of Pain, they would have been dropped due to fans bailing after Shout At The Devil. There was a connection to disco and homophobia back then. I am not saying it was the entirety of it, but a simple Google search show it was a factor on some level at the time with articles detailing events back then in this regard. I even remember the gay jokes with the Village People when I was a kid. We can probably meet somewhere in the middle there - it was a factor in certain parts of the country, but not an across the board thing. Yes, we can definitely meet in the middle, as we are more or less on the same page. I'm reading a book on Mozart, giving the facts behind a lot of the myths regarding him. As someone who experienced disco, MTV, hair metal, etc., I find a lot of myths now circulating about those, as well. Twisted Sister is another band who used to dress in drag and really pushed the envelope with fame. It's nonsensical to think Kiss' flamboyance hurt them; especially when the same audience so embraced the envelope being pushed way further not too long after. A leopard doesn't change his spots; young rock fans didn't all of a sudden get 'woke' in the following few years. And btw, check out David Lee Roth from that era; the band ruled the world at that time, and fans loved his extravagance. Going by the timeline, Side 4 of Alive II predated the solo albums, the toys, KMTPOTP. And Hold Me, Touch Me was released as a single from Paul's album, which I would imagine closed-minded fans would've objected to more than IWMFLY. I agree, some fans rejected IWMFLY. My main points are that it's too easy a scapegoat. It may have been the final nail in the coffin, but the lid had already been slammed shut. And secondly, the social elements - which in fairness I've only seen one person at kissfaq erroneously trying to make - had nothing to do with it. I also agree Kiss fans were ready for a comeback. Dynasty was a success, but Unmasked was the first blunder, followed by the Elder.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Feb 20, 2024 0:37:23 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with seeing past events through a modern lens. Like at all. It was discussed at the time and Chris Lendt also spoke about Dynasty and the fan backlash then in KISS and Sell specifically related to that album and song. You are completely misremembering. KISS fans were still on board with the band and excited about them getting back together. Remember the last recorded material was Alive II Side 4 and that was heavy. Fans also loved the Paul and Ace albums - despite the disappointment with Gene and Peter's. They failed because they shipped a million copies of each. They would have failed even if all 4 albums were loved by fans. KISS are not big album sellers. That was a label fuck up. Not a band one or fans turning on KISS then. So despite the movie and solo albums and toys, KISS fans were ready for them to return - but once I Was Made was heard and the album overall, that is when KISS fans were done and the fan exodus began and KISS were in trouble. I assure you if you Dynasty was a full album version of Alive II/Side 4, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. You are also making comparisons that are completely irrelevant to each other and years apart when trends, styles and times changed from the 70's. Glam and looking like a chick became a thing in the 80's with rock and pop, but if Motley was doing 80's dance rock songs AND looking like chicks for Theater Of Pain, they would have been dropped due to fans bailing after Shout At The Devil. There was a connection to disco and homophobia back then. I am not saying it was the entirety of it, but a simple Google search show it was a factor on some level at the time with articles detailing events back then in this regard. I even remember the gay jokes with the Village People when I was a kid. We can probably meet somewhere in the middle there - it was a factor in certain parts of the country, but not an across the board thing. Yes, we can definitely meet in the middle, as we are more or less on the same page. I'm reading a book on Mozart, giving the facts behind a lot of the myths regarding him. As someone who experienced disco, MTV, hair metal, etc., I find a lot of myths now circulating about those, as well. Twisted Sister is another band who used to dress in drag and really pushed the envelope with fame. It's nonsensical to think Kiss' flamboyance hurt them; especially when the same audience so embraced the envelope being pushed way further not too long after. A leopard doesn't change his spots; young rock fans didn't all of a sudden get 'woke' in the following few years. And btw, check out David Lee Roth from that era; the band ruled the world at that time, and fans loved his extravagance. Going by the timeline, Side 4 of Alive II predated the solo albums, the toys, KMTPOTP. And Hold Me, Touch Me was released as a single from Paul's album, which I would imagine closed-minded fans would've objected to more than IWMFLY. I agree, some fans rejected IWMFLY. My main points are that it's too easy a scapegoat. It may have been the final nail in the coffin, but the lid had already been slammed shut. And secondly, the social elements - which in fairness I've only seen one person at kissfaq erroneously trying to make - had nothing to do with it. I also agree Kiss fans were ready for a comeback. Dynasty was a success, but Unmasked was the first blunder, followed by the Elder. I never said KISS' flamboyance hurt them on a visual level, but right or wrong from a musical capacity with your greater knowledge in this area - Dynasty was deemed by KISS fans as disco KISS from their less musically educated fan base hence the mass exodus at the time from fans that is just undeniable. Dynasty wasn't a success with the fanbase - it had some cross over appeal, but that wasn't going to sustain KISS. Again this was laid out in KISS and Sell from a guy who was living it with them. I experienced it in 1979 myself with people I knew who were saying - ya, I am done with KISS what with the hard rock albums other bands were releasing at the time. Trends, styles and fashions change quickly. Again, you can get away with a feminine or glam look in the 80's if you were still playing hard rock on some level. If Motley Crue was singing the doo doo doo of I Was Made For Loving You in 1985, I assure you there would be fan backlash. As if Smoking In The Boys Room wasn't bad enough.
|
|