So, so, so hard for me to say anything about this. KISS changed my life when I was 5. That said, I know exactly who/what they are. I don't defend them. I don't know why anyone would. The only thing I would probably disagree with is Mitch's "below average singing." In the 70s Paul Stanley was right up there with Robert Plant and Rob Halford. But if you're looking at KISS's singing OVERALL.....ok, probably average at best.
Gotta disagree with all of you on this one. Bagging on KISS is easy, from the higher perch of 2023; where so very much water and great songs have gone under the bridge since 1977.
But listen.
If you throw 4 hard rock/heavy metal musicians into a room with their gear, no matter how complex and savage their own music projects are; after a few beers one of them's gonna play a KISS riff. Like "Black Diamond", or "Strutter", or "Mr. Speed". At least one more guy will pick up on it, and all will find their way into it. And they'll be having a massive amount of fun playing it.
That says something about them right there, that KISS was a formative musical influence far beyond most more "acceptable" and perfectly great bands of that era or since can ever claim. And that leaves all the other stuff, makeup, Pyro, controversy, capitalism, all of it outside that door.
The riffs have outlived, and will outlive, all else said or written about KISS.
'Probably the worst band with the most good songs.' A bit like The Grateful Dead maybe, ha ha. Remember when The Replacements covered Black Diamond? I wondered if I'd missed something and listened to an old cassette of whatever album it's on for the first time since I was 10. Yikes, they were so awful. Still, slow dancing to Beth with Mari Wilensky at the Grade 6 dance is a treasured memory. 1977 is a great year for albums but, at the time, I think I was discovering Black Sabbath which means that I would have still been processing Technical Ecstasy. Still am...
I think labeling them as "probably the worst band with the most good songs" is the fairest assessment as I won't deny their early records are a lot of fun, even if they are dumb with creep-o lyrics. My dad is a huge fan and they had a bit of a comeback in my high school days when The Donnas covered "Strutter" for that dumb KISS movie. Even saw them about a decade ago with pops and maybe it's just spending quality time with the old man that made it fun, but it was a night of good laughs at the stupidity of it all.
It’s hard to hear Kiss objectively now without effort. When I was a kid they hooked me, and parents weren’t sure what this band was which made it more attractive, of course. Now I don’t seek them out, but will listen to Detroit Rock City if it comes on.
So, so, so hard for me to say anything about this. KISS changed my life when I was 5. That said, I know exactly who/what they are. I don't defend them. I don't know why anyone would. The only thing I would probably disagree with is Mitch's "below average singing." In the 70s Paul Stanley was right up there with Robert Plant and Rob Halford. But if you're looking at KISS's singing OVERALL.....ok, probably average at best.
Gotta disagree with all of you on this one. Bagging on KISS is easy, from the higher perch of 2023; where so very much water and great songs have gone under the bridge since 1977.
But listen.
If you throw 4 hard rock/heavy metal musicians into a room with their gear, no matter how complex and savage their own music projects are; after a few beers one of them's gonna play a KISS riff. Like "Black Diamond", or "Strutter", or "Mr. Speed". At least one more guy will pick up on it, and all will find their way into it. And they'll be having a massive amount of fun playing it.
That says something about them right there, that KISS was a formative musical influence far beyond most more "acceptable" and perfectly great bands of that era or since can ever claim. And that leaves all the other stuff, makeup, Pyro, controversy, capitalism, all of it outside that door.
The riffs have outlived, and will outlive, all else said or written about KISS.
'Probably the worst band with the most good songs.' A bit like The Grateful Dead maybe, ha ha. Remember when The Replacements covered Black Diamond? I wondered if I'd missed something and listened to an old cassette of whatever album it's on for the first time since I was 10. Yikes, they were so awful. Still, slow dancing to Beth with Mari Wilensky at the Grade 6 dance is a treasured memory. 1977 is a great year for albums but, at the time, I think I was discovering Black Sabbath which means that I would have still been processing Technical Ecstasy. Still am...
How are all three of you right?
I think labeling them as "probably the worst band with the most good songs" is the fairest assessment as I won't deny their early records are a lot of fun, even if they are dumb with creep-o lyrics. My dad is a huge fan and they had a bit of a comeback in my high school days when The Donnas covered "Strutter" for that dumb KISS movie. Even saw them about a decade ago with pops and maybe it's just spending quality time with the old man that made it fun, but it was a night of good laughs at the stupidity of it all.
It’s hard to hear Kiss objectively now without effort. When I was a kid they hooked me, and parents weren’t sure what this band was which made it more attractive, of course. Now I don’t seek them out, but will listen to Detroit Rock City if it comes on.
Agreed all on Kiss comments. For me, 1977 was all about Bat Out Of Hell- Meatloaf.