Great bands/performers you just can't fall in love with.
Comments
-
KISS might have done it bigger, but they are not alone...
How many more times will Jimmy Page re-release the Led Zeppelin catalog to the public to keep cashing in on a catalog that is 40 years old??
You have a point on the marketing strategies of artists in wanting to capitalize as much as possible on their historical work but there really is no comparison between bands like Led Zeppelin and Kiss. Led Zeppelin's music speaks for itself artistically. They really didn't need any gimmicks to make it big.
Other artists who used outrageous costumes and makeup like David Bowie really didn't need them as much either because they were brilliant artistically. But bands like Kiss were more "Novelty Bands" than super-artistic and probably wouldn't made it without the shock & gimmicks.
Take away Kiss' makeup and we probably wouldn't be talking about them now because they wouldn't have even been a flyspeck in rock history. Just another ho-hum club band at best. They just found the right gimmick for the time and it payed-off for them. Kiss was a marketing success like no other novelty band in rock history. That is undeniable.
Don't get me wrong, Kiss had some decent material in their early years and I liked them when I was a kid but after about 1979 they were pretty-lame artistically. They weren't exactly Grammy material in their prime either. Kiss owes it's total success more to the marketing than their actual talent. Bands like Led Zeppelin on the other hand have a masterful catalog of material that sells itself and will continue to sell for a long time. Jimmy Page doesn't really have to do much to have their older fans plus the next generation of rock fans lining-up to buy reissues of their material. -
nooshinjohn wrote: »I was not a Kiss fan until I saw them perform.
There's a lot of truth to that statement for many bands...
-
That may be but many bands owe their success to KISS for their start and marketing abilities.Gatecrasher wrote: »Kiss owes it's total success more to the marketing than their actual talent.
Van Halen is one there are many more.
-
Gatecrasher wrote: »KISS might have done it bigger, but they are not alone...
How many more times will Jimmy Page re-release the Led Zeppelin catalog to the public to keep cashing in on a catalog that is 40 years old??
You have a point on the marketing strategies of artists in wanting to capitalize as much as possible on their historical work but there really is no comparison between bands like Led Zeppelin and Kiss. Led Zeppelin's music speaks for itself artistically. They really didn't need any gimmicks to make it big.
Other artists who used outrageous costumes and makeup like David Bowie really didn't need them as much either because they were brilliant artistically. But bands like Kiss were more "Novelty Bands" than super-artistic and probably wouldn't made it without the shock & gimmicks.
Take away Kiss' makeup and we probably wouldn't be talking about them now because they wouldn't have even been a flyspeck in rock history. Just another ho-hum club band at best. They just found the right gimmick for the time and it payed-off for them. Kiss was a marketing success like no other novelty band in rock history. That is undeniable.
Don't get me wrong, Kiss had some decent material in their early years and I liked them when I was a kid but after about 1979 they were pretty-lame artistically. They weren't exactly Grammy material in their prime either. Kiss owes it's total success more to the marketing than their actual talent. Bands like Led Zeppelin on the other hand have a masterful catalog of material that sells itself and will continue to sell for a long time. Jimmy Page doesn't really have to do much to have their older fans plus the next generation of rock fans lining-up to buy reissues of their material.
Kiss did quite well in the 80's without their makeup, and all the toys, so I have to disagree to an extent, and it's not like they had no talent, they played very well within their means and was very successful, yes marketing helped but without catchy songs they would have went down in flames in just a couple years..
-
Any band that I don't love is not a great band.
-
Cool story bro.nooshinjohn wrote: »I was given front row seats and back stage passes by Paul Stanley after I hooked him up with a cell phone back in the day. Great show, and I have Alive III autographed by Paul to boot. I was not a Kiss fan until I saw them perform.
-
Not sure,worked cheap?And didn't they need a studio stand in to do Ace's guitar parts in those days because of his drinking?How did Peter Criss ever get the drummer job... -
If one believes Gene then it was that and a lot of drugs... -
Gene never did drugs... pretty sure a Paul was clean too.The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
nooshinjohn wrote: »Gene never did drugs... pretty sure a Paul was clean too.
I think he was talking about Gene commenting about Ace and Peter..
-
This content has been removed.
-
DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »Night Ranger. I had an Lp or two of theirs back in the 80s, they had a string of hits, and their music strikes me as bland.
Never heard of them.
Really.
Now i liked the Lone Ranger.............Dadala Dadala DadaLaLaLa DadaLa Dadala Dada La La La Dadala Daddala Dadal La La La Dada Laaaaaa Dada La La La. -
Walker, Texas ranger.afterburnt wrote: »They didn't speak a word of English, they were from South Carolina.
Village Idiot of Club Polk -
This content has been removed.
-
-
DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »At Spotify, there is a brief bio on Night Ranger. They have 333K listeners per month. They were an early to mid 80s "hard" rock band. Some of their members were with Ozzy Ozbourne and Montrose. I do not want anyone to throw rocks at me, even the soft "sandstone" types. "Soft" rock may be as big an oxymoron as jumbo shrimp. In defense of "jumbo" shrimp, they are less likely to fall thru the barbie and onto the coals than shrimpy shrimp.
I had no idea that either of those guys were ever in Night Ranger. Seems like an odd mix to me, but maybe I just never listened to enough Night Ranger.Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.-John Wooden -
Kiss did quite well in the 80's without their makeup, and all the toys, so I have to disagree to an extent, and it's not like they had no talent, they played very well within their means and was very successful, yes marketing helped but without catchy songs they would have went down in flames in just a couple years..
God their albums in the 80's were horrible. All you have to do is to listen to their solo albums they released in 1978 to tell where the talent was and it sure wasn't Gene Simmons.
That may be but many bands owe their success to KISS for their start and marketing abilities.Gatecrasher wrote: »Kiss owes it's total success more to the marketing than their actual talent.
Van Halen is one there are many more.
i have a hard time agreeing that bands like Van Halen owed something to Kiss? Van Halen didn't have to cross-dress and wear transvestite makeup while breathing fire in order for their music to sell. Eddie Van Halen is a guitar virtuoso on a level that no one in Kiss can ever come close too. David Lee Roth was also a far-better singer than Gene Simmons or Paul Stanley. I can sing better than those two (and I'm not that good) lol.
Van Halen's 1st album is an iconic rock masterpiece without any visual aids. It's by far their best. Kiss never had anything even remotely as good. Not even close.
-
nooshinjohn wrote: »Gene never did drugs... pretty sure a Paul was clean too.
I think he was talking about Gene commenting about Ace and Peter..
Correct -
Gatecrasher have you ever read the bands thank you notes in the album liner notes? Seems not because
1. VanHalen thanked gene Simmons and if you ever seen any of the bio's from Van Halen Eddy and David said they couldn't get a deal without Genes help.
2. Many other bands thanked Kiss for picking them up and putting them on tour with them. Gene was very influential in getting them record deal then taking them on tour to promote them.
3. The evidence is out there in the liner notes -
^^^^^
-
Gatecrasher have you ever read the bands thank you notes in the album liner notes? Seems not because
1. VanHalen thanked gene Simmons and if you ever seen any of the bio's from Van Halen Eddy and David said they couldn't get a deal without Genes help.
2. Many other bands thanked Kiss for picking them up and putting them on tour with them. Gene was very influential in getting them record deal then taking them on tour to promote them.
3. The evidence is out there in the liner notes
I have to admit I've never heard that and it is interesting.
That's different than what I was inferring from your statement though. Helping a band out by adding them to a tour as an opening act is one thing. Saying that a band like Van Halen somehow owes a band like Kiss something artistically is something else altogether. I think most critics would agree that Van Halen was the more talented band musically. Very few guitarists are in the same league as Eddie Van Halen. Even as good as Ace was (and he was good) he still wasn't on Eddie's level.
I did go to see Kiss in 1976 during the 2nd leg of their original "Alive" tour at the Harrisburg Farm Show Arena. That's when they were good (and fresh). It was the first rock concert I ever went to. I was 15 years old and remember the stage had barbed wire in front of it. Of course they had the big flashing K-I-S-S sign in the back. Fans were throwing bags of weed up on the stage as the band was performing and the stage hands were picking them up and stuffing them in their pockets. Gene was breathing fire.
It was right after "Kiss Alive" was released and the show was a carbon copy of the album. The 1st Kiss Alive album was one of the most-iconic live albums of the 70's right there with "Frampton Comes Alive" and "Cheap Trick Live At Budokan" all of which sold millions of copies.
I also remember when Van Halen's debut was released. I heard it on the radio and rushed-out to a record store called "Sight & Sound" in Camp Hill, PA and purchased the 8-track. We proceeded to play the living crap out of it! I remember one night at an outdoor party we played it non-stop for like 12 hours. Those of us old enough to remember 8-tracks know that they would just keep on playing forever (or until the were eaten by the player). I think we used about 50% of the tape's life in the first week. lol -
Horrible or not, they did quite well in the 80's without all the makeup and toys..
With that said I agree with you on the best years of KISS, their first four albums are my favorite, and I also agree with you on the solo albums, Gene's was the worst, and why Cher put her voice in it? I will never understand... -
^^Because Gene put his tongue in it.Post edited by motorhead43026 onThe best way to predict the future is to invent it.
It is imperative that we recognize that an opinion is not a fact. -
I loved Ace Frehley's solo LP.
It was by far the best and he was without doubt the most-talented of the group.
Have you ever seen him in an interview though? His laugh was so annoying! -
Because Cher sucks too...The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
Thats an easy one Gene was putting the tool to her and bought her houses. She was no dummy follow the money.I also agree with you on the solo albums, Gene's was the worst, and why Cher put her voice in it? I will never understand...
Yep the first albums were by for the best. I played the first alive album so much i think my needle punched right through and i was left with spaghetti on the floor. Geesh 1976 I was in 6th grade a looong way from going to those long haired concerts as my countryfied parents called them. I do not recall kiss ever coming close to Bloomington most likely Chicago was the closest but my parents were never going to spend any money on that i assure you.:)
-
nooshinjohn wrote: »Because Cher sucks too...
Yeah, I know, Sonny told me. -
Gatecrasher wrote: »
Yep it was the best and those albums are worth a mint if you have the originals. The makeup actually helped Ace he's one ugly ****:) -
afterburnt wrote: »They didn't speak a word of English, they were from South Carolina.
Village Idiot of Club Polk -
This content has been removed.
https://youtu.be/ZWUS7CxH4YY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C91WgKc541s