sextonseven said:

"Forever", maybe? That was a hit in 1989-1990. Awful song, by the way.

rialb said:

Yes, "Forever" was it. That and "Beth" were Kiss' only top ten hits in the U.S.

origmnd said:

"Great Expectations" is one of my favorite all time songs, by anyone.

blackguitaristz said:

The KISS LOVE THEME on their debut album is a beautiful instrumental. ANYTHING FOR MY BABY off of DRESSED TO KILL has got to be one of my favorite songs. But then there's MR SPEED on ROCK AND ROLL OVER. Oh shit. I can't stop.


M

sextonseven said:

You forgot Detroit Rock City. Love 'em, but Forever equals

The Queen action figures are lame.

Stax said:

there are Queen action figures too? WHERE WHERE WHERE? I'd love to see them!

RipHer2Shreds said:

No, Kiss only hit the top 10 with their ballads. Their disco song came close (#11).

sextonseven said:

You're probably right. It gets confusing, because Beth was originally the B-side of Detroit Rock City, but then it started getting more airplay and was re-issued as the A-side. I'll have to find out for sure later.

While Kiss is a fun party band, and they put on a great show, they don't compare to Queen. First off, Kiss doesn't have much beyond their theatrics. Their songs are simple, silly tunes, while Queen has true music going for them.

While Kiss knows how to make a rock & roll spectacle, none of the members are as magnetic as Mercury. Freddie took the stage and blew everyone away WITHOUT the use of pyrotechnics, fake blood, kabuki makeup or long tongues. Brian May's guitar playing is as tight as it comes, and Queen's arrangements were always far more challenging.

Queen wins, hands down.

Natisse said:

Sorry Nat, I was only joking.

Stax said:

I know I've been a Queen fan for many years and had neeeever ever heard of them lol

JediMaster said:

KISS doesn't make true music? They're pure rock n roll - the spectacle and the music.

RipHer2Shreds said:

Personally, I've always found Kiss's songs to be fluffy, fun rock, with very little substance. Structurally, their stuff is pretty simplistic, and lyrically? Well, let's just say that those guys are hardly poets. Nothing is wrong with that, but it certainly places them below a more competent band, with more complex musical and lyrical compostitions.

Kiss is like a piece of hard candy, while Queen is like a steak dinner. Ain't nothing wrong with a Jolly Rancher, but it won't satisfy me when I'm really hungry.

minneapolisgenius said:

Definitely.

JediMaster said:

To each their own, I guess. But I'm wondering if you've even heard Destroyer or Rock n Roll Over. Both great albums, and I don't think either can be described as simplistic. Structurally, musically and lyrically, they're great rock and roll albums. They're not grand on the scale of A Night at the Opera, but few albums are. I think referring to KISS as a less competent band is a stretch, too. Yes, they're a joke now, but they maintained their presence all these years, because they're competent musicians.

I don't think I have a preference for one or the other. At this point I don't own any Queen albums, though that will change. They're a band I've always liked, but I've yet to venture deep into their catalogue. My mom is a fan, so I listened to them growing up. I just don't think you can dismiss KISS as pure fluff and pretty much build up Queen to be the greatest band ever to walk the planet. Both are great, both were trashed by critics, and both still have ardent fan bases.

That said, KISS should have stopped about two decades ago - I'd rather not see pot-belly Gene running around in tight leather.

RipHer2Shreds said:

As always, very well said, Rip. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I love both bands dearly. Ace Frehley is the reason I play guitar right handed. I swithched from playing left handed (wasn't really hip to Jimi yet. I was 9.) to right handed cuz that's the way Ace played. Later, in my teens, I fell in love with Brian May's playing. Both have been a great influence on me as a guitarist. KISS obviously, is a matter of taste. I'm with Rip regarding "Destroyer" and in some ways is a better album, "Rock and Roll Over". But , their earlier albums as well, like "Hotter Than Hell" are also very good. Kiss from 74 to 77, that was they're peak, album wise. They had a LOT of Zeppelin/Sabbath type material on those albums, as well as the Stones. If u get caught up in the makeup, and listen with your eyes and not your ears, then yeah. If u listen with your ears and u don't dig it, then more power to ya.

Queen is the greatest band of all time and anyone who disagrees is probably American.

origmnd said:

I found a post that coincided with my last post. Why did Queen burn out in the early 80's? Because they weren't as "successful" in the United States (successful like bands Van Halen or Motley Crue and whoever else ruled the charts in rock then). Who cares, America isn't the be all end all for music, especially when Queen seemingly (whether it was intentional or unintentional) ignored the friggin' market place. They stopped touring in the states after 1982, few radio interviews and still managed a few top 40's despite that. How do a song becomes a "hit"? Radio prmotion. You have to hear a song to go out and buy a single. What's a great way to get radio promotion? Touring, you swoop through the town, they give away free tickets through gimmicks or whatever and if a 4th of the people at a sold out show decides to buy a single it's gonna sell fairly well. Queen were the best live act around, not Prince, not the Rolling Stones and definitely not Kiss could hold a candle to them (who were the best act at Live Aid again?) if they would've toured they would've been okay over here but they didn't and they were still great.

The Miracle went no. 1 overseas, a very good album, Innuendo was no. 1 and the single Innuendo (which wasnt released in the USA) was no. 1 as well, the video was criticvally acclaimed. So I don't think anyone could say Queen really ever burned out, who gives a fuck if they were successful here. Even though I definitely admit that they had a down trot in the 80's starting with Hot Space, the Works (IMO) was even worse than Hot Space and A kind of Magic was mediocre but the albums did well overseas because of the promotion put in to them. On a side note I have no idea if Queen would've recaptured their magic if Freddie wasn't facing his own mortality.

kdj997 said:

Burned out means "musically" to me---I could give a fuck as far as sales go.

Kiss and Queen just didnt release anything as interesting after the early 80's.

Would u say Prince burned out after Diamonds And Pearls just because he stopped selling? The little fucker STILL
hasnt burnt out TODAY.

origmnd said:

Darling have you heard Innuendo, or the Miracle. Just curious, if you didn't like them that's your own perogative and is totally understandable.

Kiss is not even in the same breathing space as Queen if you ask me. And I dig Kiss.

This question is like Peeing in Milk.

It is just wrong!

QUEEN!!

I'll have to go with Kiss on this one. Queen was a great band, but they were a little too pretentious and pompous for my tastes. Kiss's makeup and theatrics may have caused some people to dismiss them as having little talent, but they really were a great band. Each member brought their own influences into the mix, from blues to jazz to glam rock. Eric Carr gave them a real kick in the ass for Creatures of the Night too.

Eeeeesh.

Two of my fave bands. Hard to pickie

But I shall pick Queen

Tom said:

kdj997 said:

are u saying those 2 can compare to their
74-77 lps?