Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
To be serious, I find it hard to place them in a category with Led Zeppelin or early Sabbath. Or even Deep Purple or the newer British bands like Iron Maiden. But they had a few anthems like Rock And Roll All Night, so they accomplished something.
I think the members of Kiss would agree with you here (perhaps with the exception of the obsessively self-promoting Gene Simmons). Paul Stanley has said on record that he was embarrassed when Kiss once rated higher in a poll than Led Zeppelin. He said very clearly that Kiss were never even in the same league. In fact no one would put Kiss on the same level as Zeppelin, Sabbath or Purple - these are the architects of hard rock. Kiss never claimed this status but that doesn’t mean that they are crap. For example, Stanley Turrentine was not an innovator like John Coltrane but he was a great jazz saxophonist and made some of the most engaging and listenable straight ahead jazz albums of the mid to late 1960s. Because Turrentine was not a pioneer of the genre, does that mean his music can be casually dismissed? Kiss were not revolutionary but they were very good at what they did and deserve the critical recognition for this.
When you use qualitative discriptions like great and say that Kiss themselves do not see themselves in that category then your argument falls apart. If you feel that Kiss is a band that you really enjoy, then appreciate them for that. After all, that's what really matters, doesn't it? And don't worry about them being the greatest, the biggest, the most popular or whatever.
Edited by SteveG - October 20 2020 at 06:35
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
To be serious, I find it hard to place them in a category with Led Zeppelin or early Sabbath. Or even Deep Purple or the newer British bands like Iron Maiden. But they had a few anthems like Rock And Roll All Night, so they accomplished something.
I think the members of Kiss would agree with you here (perhaps with the exception of the obsessively self-promoting Gene Simmons). Paul Stanley has said on record that he was embarrassed when Kiss once rated higher in a poll than Led Zeppelin. He said very clearly that Kiss were never even in the same league. In fact no one would put Kiss on the same level as Zeppelin, Sabbath or Purple - these are the architects of hard rock. Kiss never claimed this status but that doesn’t mean that they are crap. For example, Stanley Turrentine was not an innovator like John Coltrane but he was a great jazz saxophonist and made some of the most engaging and listenable straight ahead jazz albums of the mid to late 1960s. Because Turrentine was not a pioneer of the genre, does that mean his music can be casually dismissed? Kiss were not revolutionary but they were very good at what they did and deserve the critical recognition for this.
When you use qualitative discriptions like great and say that Kiss themselves do not see themselves in that category then your argument falls apart. If you feel that Kiss is a band that you really enjoy, then appreciate them for that. After all, that's what really matters, doesn't it? And don't worry about them being the greatest, the biggest, the most popular or whatever.
What you say is right. I don’t think Kiss are the greatest, best etc at anything. But, I think they deserve greater critical recognition for being a great (not the greatest) 70s hard rock band instead being dismissed as some kind of joke. I fully understand the prejudice towards the band - it’s not unlike the critical prejudice that has been aimed at prog for decades. But you are right - ultimately you form your own judgements and listen to what you like, regardless of critical views.
Haiku
Writing a poem
With seventeen syllables
Is very diffic....
To be serious, I find it hard to place them in a category with Led Zeppelin or early Sabbath. Or even Deep Purple or the newer British bands like Iron Maiden. But they had a few anthems like Rock And Roll All Night, so they accomplished something.
I think the members of Kiss would agree with you here (perhaps with the exception of the obsessively self-promoting Gene Simmons). Paul Stanley has said on record that he was embarrassed when Kiss once rated higher in a poll than Led Zeppelin. He said very clearly that Kiss were never even in the same league. In fact no one would put Kiss on the same level as Zeppelin, Sabbath or Purple - these are the architects of hard rock. Kiss never claimed this status but that doesn’t mean that they are crap. For example, Stanley Turrentine was not an innovator like John Coltrane but he was a great jazz saxophonist and made some of the most engaging and listenable straight ahead jazz albums of the mid to late 1960s. Because Turrentine was not a pioneer of the genre, does that mean his music can be casually dismissed? Kiss were not revolutionary but they were very good at what they did and deserve the critical recognition for this.
When you use qualitative discriptions like great and say that Kiss themselves do not see themselves in that category then your argument falls apart. If you feel that Kiss is a band that you really enjoy, then appreciate them for that. After all, that's what really matters, doesn't it? And don't worry about them being the greatest, the biggest, the most popular or whatever.
What you say is right. I don’t think Kiss are the greatest, best etc at anything. But, I think they deserve greater critical recognition for being a great (not the greatest) 70s hard rock band instead being dismissed as some kind of joke. I fully understand the prejudice towards the band - it’s not unlike the critical prejudice that has been aimed at prog for decades. But you are right - ultimately you form your own judgements and listen to what you like, regardless of critical views.
I think I said, on this site your not gonna get much agreement on Kiss deserving more critical recognition, they are not a band that most here listen to, and to appreciate what they are or did you would have to listen to them from years ago, grow up with them basically.
So for most here Kiss is a band that is more theatrics and possibly a joke than anything serious. Your not going to get many, if any, who think Peter Gabriel was a joke for dressing up in a red dress with a fox head, shaving his head down the middle or wearing makeup on stage with a bat costume?? ....But I promise you on a metal forum, you will.
I think I said, on this site your not gonna get much agreement on Kiss deserving more critical recognition, they are not a band that most here listen to, and to appreciate what they are or did you would have to listen to them from years ago, grow up with them basically.
So for most here Kiss is a band that is more theatrics and possibly a joke than anything serious. Your not going to get many, if any, who think Peter Gabriel was a joke for dressing up in a red dress with a fox head, shaving his head down the middle or wearing makeup on stage with a bat costume?? ....But I promise you on a metal forum, you will.
KISS won't get positive discussion on a metal site either, too poppy, too commercial, too cheesy sometimes and so on.
^ Maybe today they are considered more poppy, but in the mid 70s they were considered hard rock........I'll use the term for the first time from that other thread....They were Heavy Rock
^ Maybe today they are considered more poppy, but in the mid 70s they were considered hard rock........I'll use the term for the first time from that other thread....They were Heavy Rock
They were not the heaviest thing even back in the 70s.
It also belongs to a type of hard rock that sounds very commercial to my ears, and which also includes hair metal and things like that. The band may be very good at what they are doing, bu I wouldn't call it subtle art with much intellectual depth.
Kids didn't rush to the shop to buy Judas Priest cards, nor did kids dress up as Ronnie Montrose for Halloween, and I can'r remember kids applying temporary Iron Maiden tattoos. Kiss were a marketing gimmick - the Monkees reprised; the Osmonds for the pre-teen crowd; a primer in hard rock for the high school glue sniffers.
Headache music - the gateway drug for future Whitesnake fans.
I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there.....
Kids didn't rush to the shop to buy Judas Priest cards, nor did kids dress up as Ronnie Montrose for Halloween, and I can'r remember kids applying temporary Iron Maiden tattoos. Kiss were a marketing gimmick - the Monkees reprised; the Osmonds for the pre-teen crowd; a primer in hard rock for the high school glue sniffers.
Headache music - the gateway drug for future Whitesnake fans.
Gene Simmons was a middle school teacher, he knew what the kids would would go for. The band was a very calculated cash cow.
Kids didn't rush to the shop to buy Judas Priest cards, nor did kids dress up as Ronnie Montrose for Halloween, and I can'r remember kids applying temporary Iron Maiden tattoos. Kiss were a marketing gimmick - the Monkees reprised; the Osmonds for the pre-teen crowd; a primer in hard rock for the high school glue sniffers.
Headache music - the gateway drug for future Whitesnake fans.
I listened to Whitesanke before i ever listened to KISS.
Whitesanke was my getaway to Led Zepp and Deep Purple and other blues-rock
Gene Simmons was fine in Runaway (1984) with Tom Selleck as I recall. I watched that with a friend in the cinema when it came out. It didn't win any Oscars of which I am aware.
In case you didn't see the video, Gene Simmons was in the sci-fi movie "Runaway" with Tom Selleck, and Gene Simmons played the part of the arch-villain, Luther.
In case you didn't see the video, Gene Simmons was in the sci-fi movie "Runaway" with Tom Selleck, and Gene Simmons played the part of the arch-villain, Luther.
have you seen that movie? I think I saw it long time ago.
just because he acted in some movie, does not mean he's a good actor.
Kids didn't rush to the shop to buy Judas Priest cards, nor did kids dress up as Ronnie Montrose for Halloween, and I can'r remember kids applying temporary Iron Maiden tattoos. Kiss were a marketing gimmick - the Monkees reprised; the Osmonds for the pre-teen crowd; a primer in hard rock for the high school glue sniffers.
Headache music - the gateway drug for future Whitesnake fans.
Gene Simmons was a middle school teacher, he knew what the kids would would go for. The band was a very calculated cash cow.
Yes..a typist at Vogue magazine and a middle school teacher for a short while....born Chaim witz in Israel btw, moved to New York. Then Eugene Klein,,, then Gene Simmons, being a stage name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Simmons
Not a fan of Kiss but they filled a niche for some hard rock fans in the day....more power to them.
Edited by dr wu23 - October 26 2020 at 13:04
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.242 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.