PDA

View Full Version : Kiss Fans Protest Rock Hall of Fame Snub



BAMAPHIN 22
08-06-2006, 12:43 PM
About 200 Kiss fans protested Saturday in front of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum to demand that the band be inducted into the hall.

Fans, some from as far away as California, carried signs and had painted their faces in black-and-white to resemble Kiss band members.

Those participating in the half-hour demonstration were upset that the band, formed more than 30 years ago, has not been admitted, even though it has been eligible since the late 1990s.

Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record, according to the museum's Web site.

"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll (http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=77&k=rock%20and%20roll)," the site says.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2279002

Ray Finkle
08-06-2006, 12:47 PM
KISS will get in one of these years. It's only a matter of time.

FinFan72
08-06-2006, 12:52 PM
damn they should have went in years ago :shakeno:

Jimmy James
08-06-2006, 12:52 PM
It is pretty outrageous that KISS isn't included. Their musical contribution is limited, but I understand the mission of the HoF to be enshrining artists that contributed to rock and roll in any way. You can't deny the contribution that KISS made as entertainers -- their concerts were incredibly innovative, and they influenced a great number of later acts. This is a lot like the Art Monk situation if you ask me. The people who make the selection want to act like snobs to make a case that they have standards, so they actively try to keep deserving entities out of their museums.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
08-06-2006, 01:21 PM
horrible music but they definitely deserve to get in. they're the joe namath of bands.

Metal Panda
08-06-2006, 01:44 PM
Kiss were never that great. They were a singles band, nothing more.

Destroyer was decent, nothing to write home about.

Love Gun was stupid, outside of "Stole Your Love" and "Love Gun". Yes, I include 'Shock Me' as a sucky song.

Pagan
08-06-2006, 05:07 PM
Kiss were never that great. They were a singles band, nothing more.

Destroyer was decent, nothing to write home about.

Love Gun was stupid, outside of "Stole Your Love" and "Love Gun". Yes, I include 'Shock Me' as a sucky song.
Dude, I respect your opinions on music, but you're 25 man. You weren't even born when Destroyer was released, so I can understand how you think it was just "decent". You can't possibly fathom the impact that album had unless you were around when it was released.

At the time, the album took rock by storm. People ate it up, and KISS was at their zenith as far as popularity. You couldn't swing a dead cat around by the tail without hitting something relating to them.

While KISS definitely isn't the best as far as being musicians, they did have some kick *** songs.

Check out the live versions of Firehouse, Rock Bottom, Parasite and Black Diamond for prime examples.

Songs like that weren't "horrible" in the least. Basic 4/4 ballsy rock, if you ask me.

That being said, there's no denying their impact on hard rock, and there are few who can touch them as far as live performance.

They deserved to get in long ago.

Ronnie Bass
08-06-2006, 05:18 PM
I am not a fan of Kiss, but there is no doubt that they belong in the RHOF, it's a joke for them to be omitted.

54Fins
08-06-2006, 06:24 PM
horrible music but they definitely deserve to get in. they're the joe namath of bands. You may not like their music,but I'm sure there are a bunch of bands that should'nt be in it that are.That being said,I agree,they should be in the hall.

Metal Panda
08-06-2006, 06:46 PM
Dude, I respect your opinions on music, but you're 25 man. You weren't even born when Destroyer was released, so I can understand how you think it was just "decent". You can't possibly fathom the impact that album had unless you were around when it was released.

I'm having a little trouble understanding what my age has to do with my ability to assess the quality of an album. Otherwise, nobody today could form an opinion on Mozart's Requiem Mass.

You're right--I could not fathom the album's impact, not being alive at the time. That's a separate issue.

However, what I can do is listen to the album and give my honest, unbiased opinion. And to be quite frank, whom is going to show the least bias on their opinion of Kiss's Destroyer...someone whom has warm memories of the album because of their warm memories of the timeframe it was released, or someone whom is not encouraged by said feelings of nostalgia?

They're overrated. I don't dislike the style of music they play, I dislike most of their songs. So I hope nobody tries to pull that card.

I didn't necessarily claim they shouldn't be in the Hall. But if the Hall was strictly based on quality of music (which it is not), they wouldn't get my vote.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
08-06-2006, 06:49 PM
I'm having a little trouble understanding what my age has to do with my ability to assess the quality of an album. shh! that's pagan's entire argument for any subject!

Jaydog57
08-06-2006, 07:06 PM
I'm having a little trouble understanding what my age has to do with my ability to assess the quality of an album. Otherwise, nobody today could form an opinion on Mozart's Requiem Mass.

You're right--I could not fathom the album's impact, not being alive at the time. That's a separate issue.

However, what I can do is listen to the album and give my honest, unbiased opinion. And to be quite frank, whom is going to show the least bias on their opinion of Kiss's Destroyer...someone whom has warm memories of the album because of their warm memories of the timeframe it was released, or someone whom is not encouraged by said feelings of nostalgia?

They're overrated. I don't dislike the style of music they play, I dislike most of their songs. So I hope nobody tries to pull that card.

I didn't necessarily claim they shouldn't be in the Hall. But if the Hall was strictly based on quality of music (which it is not), they wouldn't get my vote.I think I can understand what Pagan means. Yeah, you heard the album, but not when it came out and was all over the radio. Being old enough to appreciate music when it's at it's height is different than hearing it 25 years later. I go through the same thing with my DLR era Van Halen. I played their album 'Fair Warning' at work one time and this 20 year old kid says, "I can't believe that stuff ever made it on the radio, that guitar player has no talent." He just doesn't get it.:rolleyes:

dQbell
08-06-2006, 08:30 PM
I'm having a little trouble understanding what my age has to do with my ability to assess the quality of an album. Otherwise, nobody today could form an opinion on Mozart's Requiem Mass.

You're right--I could not fathom the album's impact, not being alive at the time. That's a separate issue.

However, what I can do is listen to the album and give my honest, unbiased opinion. And to be quite frank, whom is going to show the least bias on their opinion of Kiss's Destroyer...someone whom has warm memories of the album because of their warm memories of the timeframe it was released, or someone whom is not encouraged by said feelings of nostalgia?

They're overrated. I don't dislike the style of music they play, I dislike most of their songs. So I hope nobody tries to pull that card.

I didn't necessarily claim they shouldn't be in the Hall. But if the Hall was strictly based on quality of music (which it is not), they wouldn't get my vote.

With KISS, it was very important to be around during their peak. It wasn't about the music. It was about KISS. It was about painting your face to replicate your favorite band member. It was a culture. It was about the KISS Army, and everything that went along with it. KISS was everywhere. I came along later and stiil, they were everywhere. They were what was cool then. It was about claims by people saying they saw the band without make-up on. Sure that stuff probably wouldn't fly today, but it still was great.

It goes way beyond the music, but it was rock and roll amplified.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
08-06-2006, 08:42 PM
I played their album 'Fair Warning' at work one time and this 20 year old kid says, "I can't believe that stuff ever made it on the radio, that guitar player has no talent." He just doesn't get it.:rolleyes:he didn't say that.

Jaydog57
08-06-2006, 08:55 PM
he didn't say that.Yeah, he really did.:dolphins:

Pagan
08-06-2006, 09:07 PM
I'm having a little trouble understanding what my age has to do with my ability to assess the quality of an album. Otherwise, nobody today could form an opinion on Mozart's Requiem Mass.
Did I say that? Read what I said again.


You're right--I could not fathom the album's impact, not being alive at the time. That's a separate issue.
No, it's not a seperate issue. The entire idea of being voted into the hall has really nothing to do with musical talent. It's primarily about the impact that a band or artist has. Otherwise the Sex Pistols would never have made it, and the hall would be filled with nothing but virtuousos.

I wasn't bringing up your age to insinuate that you didn't know what you were talking about, I brought it up to highlight that you couldn't understand the impact that album had. I would never in a million years try to understand the impact Elvis had when he hit the scene, or the Beatles at their earliest stages.

Just like you can't imagine how many kids picked up guitars and formed bands after that album was released. It completely changed what was happening in rock.

THAT is what I meant.


With KISS, it was very important to be around during their peak. It wasn't about the music. It was about KISS. It was about painting your face to replicate your favorite band member. It was a culture. It was about the KISS Army, and everything that went along with it. KISS was everywhere. I came along later and stiil, they were everywhere. They were what was cool then. It was about claims by people saying they saw the band without make-up on. Sure that stuff probably wouldn't fly today, but it still was great.

It goes way beyond the music, but it was rock and roll amplified.
Bingo. Give the man a cigar.


shh! that's pagan's entire argument for any subject!
And the gist of pretty much any post you ever make is "they suck", so what's your point? Oh yes...I keep forgetting. You rarely - if ever - have one.

he didn't say that.
Yes, I did. But apparently you're too busy trying to be too cool for the room to ever comprehend things.

Ever hear that quote, better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Then again, all doubt about you being foolish was removed weeks ago.

But keep making an *** of yourself. It is quite amusing after all. :lol:

Pennington's Rocket Arm
08-06-2006, 09:26 PM
Yes, I did. But apparently you're too busy trying to be too cool for the room to ever comprehend things.

Ever hear that quote, better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Then again, all doubt about you being foolish was removed weeks ago.

But keep making an *** of yourself. It is quite amusing after all. :lol:
uhhh.....i wasn't talking about you. that should be fairly evident based on the quote i responded to. unless you're 20 years old and i'm unaware.

Pagan
08-06-2006, 09:30 PM
uhhh.....i wasn't talking about you. that should be fairly evident based on the quote i responded to. unless you're 20 years old and i'm unaware.
You were responding to Jaydog who was using that instance to explain what I was saying in the first place.

And unless you know the guy he was talking about, saying "that's not what he said" seemed as if you were saying that the way he explained what I was saying was incorrect.

Get it?

Pennington's Rocket Arm
08-06-2006, 10:02 PM
You were responding to Jaydog who was using that instance to explain what I was saying in the first place.

And unless you know the guy he was talking about, saying "that's not what he said" seemed as if you were saying that the way he explained what I was saying was incorrect.

Get it?
you're wrong buddy. i wouldn't have focused on one part of his quote when he was referring to the 20 year old if i was talking about you.

Dolphin1184
08-06-2006, 10:35 PM
You two should get married. :shakeno:

Pagan
08-06-2006, 10:55 PM
you're wrong buddy. i wouldn't have focused on one part of his quote when he was referring to the 20 year old if i was talking about you.
Then I stand corrected.

The difference between us dear, is I'll admit when I am wrong. :wink:

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 12:08 AM
I think I can understand what Pagan means. Yeah, you heard the album, but not when it came out and was all over the radio. Being old enough to appreciate music when it's at it's height is different than hearing it 25 years later. I go through the same thing with my DLR era Van Halen. I played their album 'Fair Warning' at work one time and this 20 year old kid says, "I can't believe that stuff ever made it on the radio, that guitar player has no talent." He just doesn't get it.:rolleyes:

It isn't different, though. What Pagan was saying was that I wasn't around to appreciate or understand the impact that the album had...and that IS true. To appreciate the importance of an album, one typically does need to be alive during the time period, which I don't deny.

The music, however, is the music no matter when you hear it. True, you might feel differently about it if you were alive during the decade when it was new and fresh, but the fact remains that the music is the same no matter when you first heard it, and in reality, the person whom is least likely to show bias is the one who WASN'T alive at the time.

To argue that somehow I'm not entitled to call it bad since I'm 25 is a copout of heinous proportions. Music's been a huge part of my life since I was 11, and my collection is in the thousands. By the logic above, however, I guess nobody can criticize Vivaldi since none of us were alive during the height of his popularity!

Age has nothing to do with the guy saying Eddie Van Halen has no talent. Idiocy does.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 12:10 AM
With KISS, it was very important to be around during their peak. It wasn't about the music. It was about KISS. It was about painting your face to replicate your favorite band member. It was a culture. It was about the KISS Army, and everything that went along with it. KISS was everywhere. I came along later and stiil, they were everywhere. They were what was cool then. It was about claims by people saying they saw the band without make-up on. Sure that stuff probably wouldn't fly today, but it still was great.

It goes way beyond the music, but it was rock and roll amplified.

I wonder how many of you missed where I stated in the post that I was in no way shape or form commenting on whether Kiss belonged in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and merely commenting on the quality of their music.

Then again, I should expect as much from this board.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 12:13 AM
Did I say that? Read what I said again.


No, it's not a seperate issue. The entire idea of being voted into the hall has really nothing to do with musical talent. It's primarily about the impact that a band or artist has. Otherwise the Sex Pistols would never have made it, and the hall would be filled with nothing but virtuousos.

I wasn't bringing up your age to insinuate that you didn't know what you were talking about, I brought it up to highlight that you couldn't understand the impact that album had. I would never in a million years try to understand the impact Elvis had when he hit the scene, or the Beatles at their earliest stages.

Just like you can't imagine how many kids picked up guitars and formed bands after that album was released. It completely changed what was happening in rock.

THAT is what I meant.




Then you clearly missed my point.

Did I say ANYTHING anywhere about whether Kiss deserved to be in the Hall? No. I was merely saying I thought they were boring as musicians. Nonetheless, I understood the misinterpretation, and in my first response to you, wrote the following at the bottom:

"I didn't necessarily claim they shouldn't be in the Hall. But if the Hall was strictly based on quality of music (which it is not), they wouldn't get my vote."

However, everybody on this board is pretending that sentence didn't exist, so I give up. This place can be a joke sometimes.

Note as well that my dislike for Kiss has nothing to do with the fact that they aren't virtuosos, either, as I like a lot of lo-fi music. Hell, I like Rudimentary Peni whom aren't exactly Jason Becker and Marty Friedman

d-day
08-07-2006, 03:36 AM
It isn't different, though. What Pagan was saying was that I wasn't around to appreciate or understand the impact that the album had...and that IS true. To appreciate the importance of an album, one typically does need to be alive during the time period, which I don't deny.

The music, however, is the music no matter when you hear it. True, you might feel differently about it if you were alive during the decade when it was new and fresh, but the fact remains that the music is the same no matter when you first heard it, and in reality, the person whom is least likely to show bias is the one who WASN'T alive at the time.

To argue that somehow I'm not entitled to call it bad since I'm 25 is a copout of heinous proportions. Music's been a huge part of my life since I was 11, and my collection is in the thousands. By the logic above, however, I guess nobody can criticize Vivaldi since none of us were alive during the height of his popularity!

Age has nothing to do with the guy saying Eddie Van Halen has no talent. Idiocy does.

i would argue that comment - i would bet a lot of money that the music you personally like the best is something you heard in your own lifetime or personally touched you as you were moving through your own personal life experiences - music has never been about notes or proficiently - if that was the case everyone would listen non-stop to paganini - it's more about moving you personally - and personally, i'll never forget the day kiss destroyer came out - i bought my copy the day it came out - i think a lot of people that was not a kid in the 70's either forgets or doesn't realize that there wasn't mtv, the internet, a plethora of independent record labels, cd players etc. - there were records, a few music magazines and concerts - that was it - kiss destroyer was the 1st record eddie kramer didn't produce and the absolutely great bob ezrin did - personally i think the record stands on it's own merit especially for it's time - it would be totally unfair to compare any record made after 1976 to this album - and unfortunatley i feel older school records don't get a fair shake because they inevitabley get compared to todays sounds and technology - nobody was burning arpeggios in 1976 - again, looking at what was available at that time, i think it would be unfair to compare any record from it's time to today's time - when you look at all the records that came out in 1976, whether you personally like it or not, kiss destroyer was a pretty damn good record with second to none production...

@@@
08-07-2006, 04:27 AM
I am i the only one who's first though wasn't "Why aren't Kiss in?" but how the hell do 200 people have nothing better to do than protest about it :hmmm:

Hellion
08-07-2006, 04:31 AM
Dude, I respect your opinions on music, but you're 25 man. You weren't even born when Destroyer was released, so I can understand how you think it was just "decent". You can't possibly fathom the impact that album had unless you were around when it was released.

At the time, the album took rock by storm. People ate it up, and KISS was at their zenith as far as popularity. You couldn't swing a dead cat around by the tail without hitting something relating to them.

While KISS definitely isn't the best as far as being musicians, they did have some kick *** songs.

Check out the live versions of Firehouse, Rock Bottom, Parasite and Black Diamond for prime examples.

Songs like that weren't "horrible" in the least. Basic 4/4 ballsy rock, if you ask me.

That being said, there's no denying their impact on hard rock, and there are few who can touch them as far as live performance.

They deserved to get in long ago.


The ALIVE album as a whole was one of the best live albums ever. To add to the songs you mentioned are Nothin to lose, Got to choose, Deuce, Strutter, and my favorites, Watching you and Let me go Rock & Roll

When Destroyer came out it wasn't like anything I heard before and having a brother 14 years older than me i heard a LOT of Rock at a young age.

In my opinion I wish they woulda stayed true to their roots, the stuff they did on Kiss, Hotter than Hell and Dressed to Kill and up to Destroyer. After that they got too glam and the marketing machine took over.

I love it when I hear bands that have done Kiss songs, Anthrax doing Love her all I can is outstanding. And the Kiss my @ss CD is good too.

I thought that Zombie and the rest of the all star band did a great job with God of Thunder on that tribute show.

Yes they belong in the Hall of Fame, they influanced millions of people.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 08:57 AM
i would argue that comment - i would bet a lot of money that the music you personally like the best is something you heard in your own lifetime or personally touched you as you were moving through your own personal life experiences

Actually, if you looked at my favorite album list, many of them were albums that came out in my infancy or were out before I was even born. I don't give a flip about quality production values--if I did I'd hate all old music. Nobody's free of bias, but that includes those whom were alive at the time.

We all attach subjective meaning to our music based on what we experiencing when we first heard it...but that even goes for when we hear the album years after release. Whenever I hear Queen II, released long before I was born, I have warm memories because I bought it when I was doing Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and I think back to that timeframe, which was a positive time in my life.

Some examples of favorites released before I was born or when I was an infant:

Slayer's Reign in Blood. I was six years old.

King Crimson's Red. Not yet born.

Genesis's Selling England by the Pound. Not yet born.

Iron Maiden--s/t. Released the year I was born.

Black Sabbath--s/t. Released LONG before I was born.

Queen--Queen II. Released before I was born.

Kansas--Point of Know Return. Released before I was born.

Beatles--Abbey Road. Released before I was born.

Cheap Trick--Heaven Tonight. Released before I was born.

Elton John--Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. Released before I was born.

Possessed's Seven Churches. Released when I was about 6 or 7.

Iggy and the Stooges--Raw Power. Released before I was born.

Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti/Houses of the Holy. Released before I was born.

Mercyful Fate's Melissa. Released when I was 1.

Blue Oyster Cult--Secret Treaties. Released before I was born.

Ramones--Road to Ruin. Released before I was born.

Judas Priest--Sin After Sin. Released before I was born.

Mozart's Requiem Mass. Released before all of our lifetimes.

I make no prejudice about the timeframe music was released in whatsoever. True, I have a lot of favorites that were released in my time, but I do not penalize older albums whatsoever. My music collection is eclectic and in the thousands

Proficiency as musicians doesn't bother me either. I listen to lots of raw, sloppy music like Rudimentary Peni, Impaled Nazarene, early Sodom, and the like.

No, I wouldn't have the same perspective on an album as somebody whom was alive at the time because I wouldn't know the impact the album had on the general populace. However, I've made and agreed with that point, and I feel like in this thread, I'm being told I can't have an opinion on the album as I'm only 25, which is false.

dQbell
08-07-2006, 09:44 AM
I wonder how many of you missed where I stated in the post that I was in no way shape or form commenting on whether Kiss belonged in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and merely commenting on the quality of their music.

Then again, I should expect as much from this board.

I understand, and I agree with you about that. I think their music writing ability, then and now, was rather poor. However, in reference to it being important to being around during their peak, I think for KISS it was extremely important. They were the type of band that was defined by so much more than their music, and to appreciate them as a band, I think it would be best to have been there to experience it.

That to me defines them as HOF. As far as lyrics go or music..lol. Here's a line from "C'mon and Love Me":

"I'm a man, I'm no baby
And you're lookin' every inch a lady
You're good lookin' and you're lookin' like you should be good"

you're good lookin and you're lookin' like you should be good....yeah!:lol:

Pagan
08-07-2006, 09:50 AM
No, I wouldn't have the same perspective on an album as somebody whom was alive at the time because I wouldn't know the impact the album had on the general populace. However, I've made and agreed with that point, and I feel like in this thread, I'm being told I can't have an opinion on the album as I'm only 25, which is false.
Rob, take a deep breath. No one is saying that because of your age you can't have an opinion. Let me try this one more time in a different way.

Some music is timeless, some isn't. There are some albums that hold water as the years pass by, and some that are more relevent to the time that they're released. Led Zeppelin IV is timeless, We Are Devo isn't. Get it?

Movies are the same way. When I watch Scarface now I laugh my *** off at how dated and - IMHO - BAD the movie really is. But when it first came out I thought it was the next best thing to being in a hot tub with Pam Anderson.

Such is the case with Destroyer. I can understand how to some it's not a great album...especially to those who weren't there when it was realeased. However, to those who were it was the soundtrack to our summer that year.

If you were 15 when that album was released, King of the Nighttime World and Flaming Youth were your anthems that year. I can honestly see how a 25 year old in 2006 would not be able to see that. Shout It Out Loud was also an anthem. KISS were kings of writing anthems that related to the kids and teenagers of the 70's.

Same goes for Alice Cooper. His first few albums are probably considered boring by today's standards, but when he first came out they were the most shocking things available and kids ate it up. Those albums are classics for the time.

Personally I think Destroyer was an amazing album. Does it have to do with the fact that it influenced my summer that year? Damn skippy it does. But when you get right down to it, there must be something about those songs because they still play alot of them during their sets today.

But the bottom line is that when it comes to certain albums, age most certainly effects what is thought of that album.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to an opinion. But man, don't think that because YOU have a right to your opinion that the others on here don't have the right to dispute that opinion.


Then again, I should expect as much from this board.

However, everybody on this board is pretending that sentence didn't exist, so I give up. This place can be a joke sometimes.
Just one question....then why stick around? If you want a board that just agrees with everything you say, wouldn't that get a tad boring after awhile?

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 09:51 AM
Perhaps I shouldn't have commented in this thread, but I never really stated that they didn't belong in the Hall, just that their music wasn't all that great. I don't think Kiss are horrible, but I always thought they got way too much of a following for an average band, mostly due to their theatrics.

and while KISS brought it to a large audience, they hardly invented the "makeup" shtick. The New York Dolls were doing that a few years earlier, albeit differently...

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 09:57 AM
Just one question....then why stick around? If you want a board that just agrees with everything you say, wouldn't that het a tad boring after awhile?

That's an egregious misrepresentation of my problem with this board.

My problem is not that people disagree with me. That's half the fun of a message board. If I wanted to avoid that, I wouldn't be posting anywhere.

But comments like "No offense dude, but you're 25" completely derail threads. Instead of having a debate on the merits of Kiss' music, we wind up talking about whom is worthy to comment on them. That does not make for fruitful debate whatsoever.

I'm sure you do attach warm feelings from the summer it was released--we all attach such emotions to music, which, when we listen to the songs, brings said memories back.

However, when we remove that layer, the music is merely the music, and can be analyzed by anybody. Moreso, one attaches said subjective memories to music no matter when they first heard it. When I first bought Faith No More's Angel Dust, it was probably 7 years after its initial release, and I always felt pain when I put it on for the first time after not listening to it for a year because I was suffering from heavy depression at the time and it brought back bad memories of self-inflicted misery.

I think I've made it more than clear in all one million of my posts that my music collection is timeless. While I do listen to a lot of 'modern' music, my cd/vinyl/cassette collection surpassed 1000 a while ago, and I appreciate music of all eras, production values or not. And the 70's? Hell, a good percentage of my collection comes from that era.

I will never argue that I can fathom the impact KISS had on the music scene at the time they arrived. I wasn't there! But that doesn't mean my opinion on the music bears no weight. As I've said, if anything, the unfair bias falls more on those whom were there as they were distracted by influences other than the music itself.

Pagan
08-07-2006, 10:00 AM
Perhaps I shouldn't have commented in this thread, but I never really stated that they didn't belong in the Hall, just that their music wasn't all that great. I don't think Kiss are horrible, but I always thought they got way too much of a following for an average band, mostly due to their theatrics.
Wrong. You should comment anywhere you want to. Doesn't mean people shouldn't reply to it. Hell, look at all the arguments I get into with Kat. Doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to say what she says...but I also have the right to volley back.

You won't see me saying that this place is a joke though. Evereywhere you go you'll find people who'll disagree with you, which is every much their right as it is yours or mine to comment in the first place.


and while KISS brought it to a large audience, they hardly invented the "makeup" shtick. The New York Dolls were doing that a few years earlier, albeit differently...
And Alice was doing it before them. Like anything else concerning musical gimmicks, they turned it up a notch. And I don't think it was just the fact that they wore makeup. It was that they developed four distinct characters who EVERYONE knew.

I grew up with the Dolls also, but back then no one knew or cared about anyone else but David Johanson. KISS managed to create a heavy metal version of the Beatles, where you knew each member and people actually had favorite members in the band that they related to the character of.

No band has done that since, and no band probably ever will again. The Beatles and KISS were the only ones to pull that off.

Pagan
08-07-2006, 10:02 AM
But comments like "No offense dude, but you're 25" completely derail threads. Instead of having a debate on the merits of Kiss' music, we wind up talking about whom is worthy to comment on them. That does not make for fruitful debate whatsoever.

Bro, let's just drop it, because it's frighteningly apparent that you're missing the point completely.

Just as you said that people were ignoring that one sentence YOU said, you're completely harping on that one phrase I said without even bothering to understand everything that I followed it with. I completely described what I meant about that phrase, and told you that it wasn't a dismissal at all, and you continue to bring it up...so just drop it.

We're not getting anywhere with this.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 10:04 AM
Wrong. You should comment anywhere you want to. Doesn't mean people shouldn't reply to it. Hell, look at all the arguments I get into with Kat. Doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to say what she says...but I also have the right to volley back.

You won't see me saying that this place is a joke though. Evereywhere you go you'll find people who'll disagree with you, which is every much their right as it is yours or mine to comment in the first place.

That's not my problem, though.

For one thing, I've learned a lot from arguments. Most of the time, as most people do, I stand my ground, but I've had my eyes opened to new ideas and things by arguments I've lost. Disagreement with me is not a problem.

I merely didn't like the way it was done in this thread, because I was trying to discuss KISS's musical limitations and I inferred from many of the postings that I wasn't "worthy" of commenting on such.

I would have gladly entertained somebody disagreeing with me and saying "KISS are awesome for these reasons, refute that please." Not pointing out I'm 25, therefore I just DO NOT GET the ENORMOUS POWER OF KISS.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 10:05 AM
Bro, let's just drop it, because it's frighteningly apparent that you're missing the point completely.

Just as you said that people were ignoring that one sentence YOU said, you're completely harping on that one phrase I said without even bothering to understand everything that I followed it with. I completely described what I meant about that phrase, and told you that it wasn't a dismissal at all, and you continue to bring it up...so just drop it.

We're not getting anywhere with this.

I agree with dropping it, but I didn't misinterpret what you said. I realize it had to do with KISS"s impact/influence, not the music itself. But then it spilled over into that realm as well not too long after.

However, throughout this thread it has been clearly implied that no matter what opinion I have on KISS's music, it's "skewed" because I'm not of age and pales in comparison to the opinion of those whom were really there.

Had I said "KISS were not really that influential a group and they weren't considered a big deal by as many as reported at their time of arrival", I'd have understood the response.

dQbell
08-07-2006, 10:05 AM
Hell, look at all the arguments I get into with Kat. Doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to say what she says...

Ok wait, so Kat is a girl. No serious, because I'm really confused.

If so, you too are soooo in love.

Pagan
08-07-2006, 10:09 AM
I agree with dropping it, but I didn't misinterpret what you said. I realize it had to do with KISS"s impact/influence, not the music itself. But then it spilled over into that realm as well not too long after.

However, throughout this thread it has been clearly implied that no matter what opinion I have on KISS's music, it's "skewed" because I'm not of age and pales in comparison to the opinion of those whom were really there.

Had I said "KISS were not really that influential a group and they weren't considered a big deal by as many as reported at their time of arrival", I'd have understood the response.
Bro, go back and read my paragraph about "timeless and dated". Then maybe you'll understand what I meant.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 10:11 AM
the thing I still find amusing is in the first post, you quoted the world "horrible" as if I had used it about KISS, when in reality Fin Kat did.

d-day
08-07-2006, 10:13 AM
That's an egregious misrepresentation of my problem with this board.

My problem is not that people disagree with me. That's half the fun of a message board. If I wanted to avoid that, I wouldn't be posting anywhere.

But comments like "No offense dude, but you're 25" completely derail threads. Instead of having a debate on the merits of Kiss' music, we wind up talking about whom is worthy to comment on them. That does not make for fruitful debate whatsoever.

I'm sure you do attach warm feelings from the summer it was released--we all attach such emotions to music, which, when we listen to the songs, brings said memories back.

However, when we remove that layer, the music is merely the music, and can be analyzed by anybody. Moreso, one attaches said subjective memories to music no matter when they first heard it. When I first bought Faith No More's Angel Dust, it was probably 7 years after its initial release, and I always felt pain when I put it on for the first time after not listening to it for a year because I was suffering from heavy depression at the time and it brought back bad memories of self-inflicted misery.

I think I've made it more than clear in all one million of my posts that my music collection is timeless. While I do listen to a lot of 'modern' music, my cd/vinyl/cassette collection surpassed 1000 a while ago, and I appreciate music of all eras, production values or not. And the 70's? Hell, a good percentage of my collection comes from that era.

I will never argue that I can fathom the impact KISS had on the music scene at the time they arrived. I wasn't there! But that doesn't mean my opinion on the music bears no weight. As I've said, if anything, the unfair bias falls more on those whom were there as they were distracted by influences other than the music itself.

but the times itself and your relation to it still doesn't make a great record - i remember buying their next album "rock n roll over" less then a year after destroyer was released and i though it blew - i think if we are truly going to break down kiss destroyer and fathom out whether it was a great album or not, minus all the "personal memories" as you have mentioned, then we would have to technically look at the musicianship, the song structures, modulations etc. of each song - are you willing to do that? because i will... but then what would be the point? botom line: a record for whatever reason either moves you or it doesn't - to me kiss destroyer was both a "time" piece and technically a very well written record

Pagan
08-07-2006, 10:15 AM
the thing I still find amusing is in the first post, you quoted the world "horrible" as if I had used it about KISS, when in reality Fin Kat did.
And that is who I meant said it. I'm sorry if I didn't put footnotes in my post. I thought it was obvious that if she said it, when I put it in quotations people would know that.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 10:16 AM
but the times itself and your relation to it still doesn't make a great record - i remember buying their next album "rock n roll over" less then a year after destroyer was released and i though it blew - i think if we are truly going to break down kiss destroyer and fathom out whether it was a great album or not, minus all the "personal memories" as you have mentioned, then we would have to technically look at the musicianship, the song structures, modulations etc. of each song - are you willing to do that? because i will... but then what would be the point? botom line: a record for whatever reason either moves you or it doesn't - to me kiss destroyer was both a "time" piece and technically a very well written record

Now that is more what I was expecting in a response. At least it gives me somewhere to go.

I don't HATE Destroyer, I merely said it was alright. I do love "Detroit Rock City" and "Shout It Out Loud". They're arena anthems with shoutable choruses, and what I would associate with KISS's peak.

it is just that I find too many of the other tracks to be filler. It is a semi-enjoyable album, to me, that I can pull out and play, but ultimately it didn't have lasting value with me. I can respect that it did with you, however.

d-day
08-07-2006, 10:29 AM
Now that is more what I was expecting in a response. At least it gives me somewhere to go.

I don't HATE Destroyer, I merely said it was alright. I do love "Detroit Rock City" and "Shout It Out Loud". They're arena anthems with shoutable choruses, and what I would associate with KISS's peak.

it is just that I find too many of the other tracks to be filler. It is a semi-enjoyable album, to me, that I can pull out and play, but ultimately it didn't have lasting value with me. I can respect that it did with you, however.

that's cool rob - if you dig detriot and shout, then dig away - i mean that's what's it's all about right? :wink: - it's possible if you grew up the same time as pagan and i during this time, you might have looked at this album differently, again, just because the "experience" of it may have been a factor - i've always hated top 10 lists and those type of threads - how can you possibly rate someone's personal taste and how a record has moved you... personally, destroyer is one of those few albums i like back to front - especially flaming youth, sweet pain and do you love me

Hellion
08-07-2006, 03:31 PM
Another point here is that the band had "poor" song writing skills. Look into their history had see why. The record label was pushing record after record release after release after the Alive album came out, thats they they did Alive II, they tried to capture what was on the first live album.

I meen when did this pompous attitude start with Rock & Roll? Rock was never about how good looking you are or how well the song is written.

Are the members of Kiss great musicians? No, are their songs as orchestrated and thought out as others are? Nope, but the songs they did write were top of the head pure rock&roll....it had a mix of blues in some songs and more top 40 in others it had a funky psychedelic side ( strange ways off of Hotter than Hell.and they had a dark side. name me some other bands that did that at that time?
I know a lot of very good musicians that can't write a song to save their lives.
I meen really when did people turn in to know it all critics and Rock bands to be great musicians?
Well Buffy I don't like the melody on that song it's a tad over done don't you think? The arangment is terrible and the gutairs are to loud for rocknroll

dQbell
08-07-2006, 03:35 PM
Another point here is that the band had "poor" song writing skills. Look into their history had see why. The record label was pushing record after record release after release after the Alive album came out, thats they they did Alive II, they tried to capture what was on the first live album.

I meen when did this pompous attitude start with Rock & Roll? Rock was never about how good looking you are or how well the song is written.

Are the members of Kiss great musicians? No, are their songs as orchestrated and thought out as others are? Nope, but the songs they did write were top of the head pure rock&roll....it had a mix of blues in some songs and more top 40 in others it had a funky psychedelic side ( strange ways off of Hotter than Hell.and they had a dark side. name me some other bands that did that at that time?
I know a lot of very good musicians that can't write a song to save their lives.
I meen really when did people turn in to know it all critics and Rock bands to be great musicians?
Well Buffy I don't like the melody on that song it's a tad over done don't you think? The arangment is terrible and the gutairs are to loud for rocknroll
Good post, and I'm sure Gene Simmons would probably laugh at how serious some get in their comments on rock and roll.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 04:03 PM
I meen when did this pompous attitude start with Rock & Roll? Rock was never about how good looking you are or how well the song is written.


I don't really agree there. Rock 'n roll was about an "attitude", but songwriting is integral as well.

That said, I don't consider good "songwriting" to be whom is the most technically proficient or whom display the most tight musicianship, but a song that is memorable, and lasts...something enjoyable. After all, it was John Petrucci of Dream Theatre who once said in an interview that the stuff his band wrote was "easy" because it showed no bounds and could meander as much as they wanted to, but he couldn't believe how people like Peter Gabriel wrote such solid "songs", he just couldn't figure out where it came from.

I've always felt Bad Religion were excellent 'songwriters' but as musicians they're painfully average. But in the end, I don't care--I'll spin them every day of the week.

Pagan
08-07-2006, 04:06 PM
One of Gene Simmons' best quotes concerning KISS records was an analogy he made saying that there's always the type of people who ride roller coasters and then get off and ask "but what did it mean?"

Then there are those who just go on and scream their ***** off having a great time.

It's all a matter of taste. Personally, I think KISS' early albums had some excellent songwriting. When it comes to that type of rock, it's all about the hook...and every KISS song back then had that hook.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 04:07 PM
Good post, and I'm sure Gene Simmons would probably laugh at how serious some get in their comments on rock and roll.

Is there anything inherently "wrong" with taking rock music seriously? Not every rock band was a "KISS" type. I don't see what's wrong with having a little of the best of both worlds.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 04:08 PM
One of Gene Simmons' best quotes concerning KISS records was an analogy he made saying that there's always the type of people who ride roller coasters and then get off and ask "but what did it mean?"

Then there are those who just go on and scream their ***** off having a great time."

Well, I always try to treat music by what it was trying to do. There's a different way to critique a group like 70's era Genesis, whom might be trying to experiment and break new ground, or re-innovate on old ground, and just fun stuff like KISS. I mean, if I'm listening to early Cheap Trick, I'm enjoying the pop melodies, not figuring out what scales Nielsen's using.

That said, even in that mold, I couldn't ever get into KISS. But to each his own, is how I conclude!

Pagan
08-07-2006, 04:09 PM
Is there anything inherently "wrong" with taking rock music seriously? Not every rock band was a "KISS" type. I don't see what's wrong with having a little of the best of both worlds.
Agreed...but it depends on the type of rock you're listening to. Gene himself once described KISS as "big dumb rock".

You can't get too serious about that. :lol:

Now if you're listening to prog metal or something similar, yea...serious as a heart attack. :D

Pagan
08-07-2006, 04:10 PM
Well, I always try to treat music by what it was trying to do. There's a different way to critique a group like 70's era Genesis, whom might be trying to experiment and break new ground, or re-innovate on old ground, and just fun stuff like KISS. I mean, if I'm listening to early Cheap Trick, I'm enjoying the pop melodies, not figuring out what scales Nielsen's using.

That said, even in that mold, I couldn't ever get into KISS. But to each his own, is how I conclude!
I wasn't aiming that quote from Gene at you bro, just wanna make that clear. The problem KISS always had was that most critics did critique them the same way they would ELP or Genesis.

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 04:11 PM
Agreed...but it depends on the type of rock you're listening to. Gene himself once described KISS as "big dumb rock".

You can't get too serious about that. :lol:

Now if you're listening to prog metal or something similar, yea...serious as a heart attack. :D

I definitely can agree with that.

KISS never purported to be more than what they were, and anybody who'd try to judge them on such a higher level would be extremely confused individuals.

I mean to me that's like taking a Zeke album and overanalyzing the fact that all the songs sound the same :)

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 04:12 PM
I wasn't aiming that quote from Gene at you bro, just wanna make that clear. The problem KISS always had was that most critics did critique them the same way they would ELP or Genesis.



Oh I understood that, was just giving my perspective.

Of course that changed over time with critics too, especially with the onset of the 80s, which brought scores of "raw" metal/punk to the forefront....then it later became cool to be 'raw'.

d-day
08-07-2006, 04:17 PM
It's all a matter of taste. Personally, I think KISS' early albums had some excellent songwriting. When it comes to that type of rock, it's all about the hook...and every KISS song back then had that hook.

great point - it always amazes me meeting and jamming with real proficient players - these guys can play anything and everything but when it comes to writing... they suck - paul stanley couldn't play a solo to save his life but when it came down to writing great rock hooks - no one was better especially anything and everything off kiss alive 1 - firehouse.best.hook.ever.

bottom line: i'll take a great hook writer > a virtuoso guitar player everyday of the week

Pagan
08-07-2006, 04:18 PM
great point - it always amazes me meeting and jamming with real proficient players - these guys can play anything and everything but when it comes to writing... they suck - paul stanley couldn't play a solo to save his life but when it came down to writing great rock hooks - no one was better especially anything and everything off kiss alive 1 - firehouse.best.hook.ever.

bottom line: i'll take a great hook writer > a virtuoso guitar player everyday of the week
Now if you can find someone who's BOTH.

Dayum! :lol:

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 04:21 PM
bottom line: i'll take a great hook writer > a virtuoso guitar player everyday of the week

I agree, but as long as the understanding exists that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think the musicians in Pain of Salvation can play, but I think they also write solid melodies and aren't solely in it to show off their chops, either :)

d-day
08-07-2006, 04:24 PM
Now if you can find someone who's BOTH.

Dayum! :lol:

you know what's cool about kiss alive 1, pagan - most of ace frehely's guitar solos were played over the chorus structure - so it was very common to hear gene and paul continue to sing certain chorus lines while ace was still playing his guitar solo ex. listen to the solo from got to choose and the solo from firehouse - they do it during both songs towards the end of the solo - not the most amazing piece of musical writing but pretty ****ing cool just the same - it wasn't the big things that made their music good - it was the subtle things that did it for me...

like2god
08-07-2006, 04:28 PM
I am not a KISS fan, but I do think that they belong in the Hall.

.

Pagan
08-07-2006, 04:37 PM
you know what's cool about kiss alive 1, pagan - most of ace frehely's guitar solos were played over the chorus structure - so it was very common to hear gene and paul continue to sing certain chorus lines while ace was still playing his guitar solo ex. listen to the solo from got to choose and the solo from firehouse - they do it during both songs towards the end of the solo - not the most amazing piece of musical writing but pretty ****ing cool just the same - it wasn't the big things that made their music good - it was the subtle things that did it for me...
I always loved Ace's playing bro. Not the best guitarist in the least, but something about him was pretty cool to listen to. It's funny cause when I was reading your first sentence, Got To Choose was the first thing that popped into my head. :lol:

d-day
08-07-2006, 04:44 PM
I always loved Ace's playing bro. Not the best guitarist in the least, but something about him was pretty cool to listen to. It's funny cause when I was reading your first sentence, Got To Choose was the first thing that popped into my head. :lol:

his solo record from 78' was pretty outstanding guitar work wise though - the instrumental "fractured mirror" is testimony - i love that album btw - talk about hooks, i'm in need of love and wiped out are hook city - not to mention the outstanding rythym section of will lee and anton figg - i talked to will about that cd a couple times - apparently he never even entered the studio - ace sent him the demo's but obvioulsy was able to pull it off due to his relationship with anton

Pagan
08-07-2006, 04:46 PM
his solo record from 78' was pretty outstanding guitar work wise though - the instrumental "fractured mirror" is testimony - i love that album btw - talk about hooks, i'm in need of love and wiped out are hook city - not to mention the outstanding rythym section of will lee and anton figg - i talked to will about that cd a couple times - apparently he never even entered the studio - ace sent him the demo's but obvioulsy was able to pull it off due to his relationship with anton
I don't doubt that. My cousin is a producer and Will's done some work with him. I've met him a few times and the guy is a consumate professional.

d-day
08-07-2006, 04:50 PM
I don't doubt that. My cousin is a producer and Will's done some work with him. I've met him a few times and the guy is a consumate professional.

...and anton - the fills he laid done for snow blind are some of the best i ever heard - gene's record was good too - i absolutely love the ballads he wrote for that album: mr make believe, always near you... very eclectic album

Pagan
08-07-2006, 05:01 PM
...and anton - the fills he laid done for snow blind are some of the best i ever heard - gene's record was good too - i absolutely love the ballads he wrote for that album: mr make believe, always near you... very eclectic album
Too bad *** Hole sucks so bad, huh?

Shula Come Back!
08-07-2006, 05:28 PM
I am not a KISS fan, but I do think that they belong in the Hall.

.

I agree...I personally can't stand Kiss. I don't like them much at all and I love a ton of 70's rock. I think they are highly overrated!!! On the other hand, for all the succes they have had and their huge diehard following, they belong in the hall....They did kind of take that whole rock show with theatrics to a new level. It's not for evryone, but they can sellout any stadium anywhere anytime...I say let them in...and that's coming from a non-fan!

Jaydog57
08-07-2006, 07:05 PM
Actually, if you looked at my favorite album list, many of them were albums that came out in my infancy or were out before I was even born. I don't give a flip about quality production values--if I did I'd hate all old music. Nobody's free of bias, but that includes those whom were alive at the time.

We all attach subjective meaning to our music based on what we experiencing when we first heard it...but that even goes for when we hear the album years after release. Whenever I hear Queen II, released long before I was born, I have warm memories because I bought it when I was doing Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and I think back to that timeframe, which was a positive time in my life.

Some examples of favorites released before I was born or when I was an infant:

Slayer's Reign in Blood. I was six years old.

King Crimson's Red. Not yet born.

Genesis's Selling England by the Pound. Not yet born.

Iron Maiden--s/t. Released the year I was born.

Black Sabbath--s/t. Released LONG before I was born.

Queen--Queen II. Released before I was born.

Kansas--Point of Know Return. Released before I was born.

Beatles--Abbey Road. Released before I was born.

Cheap Trick--Heaven Tonight. Released before I was born.

Elton John--Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. Released before I was born.

Possessed's Seven Churches. Released when I was about 6 or 7.

Iggy and the Stooges--Raw Power. Released before I was born.

Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti/Houses of the Holy. Released before I was born.

Mercyful Fate's Melissa. Released when I was 1.

Blue Oyster Cult--Secret Treaties. Released before I was born.

Ramones--Road to Ruin. Released before I was born.

Judas Priest--Sin After Sin. Released before I was born.

Mozart's Requiem Mass. Released before all of our lifetimes.

I make no prejudice about the timeframe music was released in whatsoever. True, I have a lot of favorites that were released in my time, but I do not penalize older albums whatsoever. My music collection is eclectic and in the thousands

Proficiency as musicians doesn't bother me either. I listen to lots of raw, sloppy music like Rudimentary Peni, Impaled Nazarene, early Sodom, and the like.

No, I wouldn't have the same perspective on an album as somebody whom was alive at the time because I wouldn't know the impact the album had on the general populace. However, I've made and agreed with that point, and I feel like in this thread, I'm being told I can't have an opinion on the album as I'm only 25, which is false. That's a very good list man, I have most of that stuff myself. You have good taste. :up: :rawk: :up:

Metal Panda
08-07-2006, 08:29 PM
That's a very good list man, I have most of that stuff myself. You have good taste. :up: :rawk: :up:

thanks dude. I only wish I had the time and money to explore music to the fullest of potentials.

dQbell
08-07-2006, 09:36 PM
his solo record from 78' was pretty outstanding guitar work wise though - the instrumental "fractured mirror" is testimony - i love that album btw - talk about hooks, i'm in need of love and wiped out are hook city - not to mention the outstanding rythym section of will lee and anton figg - i talked to will about that cd a couple times - apparently he never even entered the studio - ace sent him the demo's but obvioulsy was able to pull it off due to his relationship with anton

Ace was my favorite member. In fact, that solo album was the only one of the four they did that had a top 10 listing (New York Groove). One of my favs on that album was Speedin' Back to My Baby.

TJamesW_phinfan
08-07-2006, 10:08 PM
his solo record from 78' was pretty outstanding guitar work wise though - the instrumental "fractured mirror" is testimony - i love that album btw - talk about hooks, i'm in need of love and wiped out are hook city - not to mention the outstanding rythym section of will lee and anton figg - i talked to will about that cd a couple times - apparently he never even entered the studio - ace sent him the demo's but obvioulsy was able to pull it off due to his relationship with anton

Fractured Mirror is an amazing piece of music. All its elements combining from beginning to end giving a sense of motion like the flow of a day from dawn to dusk in time laps video. It is one of my favorite pieces of music. Ace is not a master shredder but I would put his heart, feeling and sense of melody for guitar on par with anyone.

When I need to lose some stress I like to let instrumentals pull me out of the world for a while. Works from Pat Metheney Chuck Mangione, Mozart, Beethoven, Satriani, etc. And Fractured Mirror is always on the list when I am in that mode.