I know rihalb and a few others are going to curse the day i was born and rip me limb from limb as well as sacrifice my body to the illuminatis highest order for saying this.

But as someone who has owned almost every Kiss album.... and as i grew older i see there overrated like HIGHLY overrated.

I get it, the show is amazing and they where one of the first to put on a spectacular after Alice. But i mean... their albums are just not great, there 70's work is fun! But the song writing is not great, I find Ace to do basic 3-chord rock & Peter [Who is probably the coolest guy in the group] does basic drum patterns nearly every song. Gene is a decent bass player and Paul is a good singer imo.

I think they had better musicians in the 80's, people cry omg there 80's stuff is so cheesy... um child there 70's stuff is cheesy there tongue in cheek, I don't put them up there with Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Stones, Cream, Hendrix, T-Rex, Aerosmith, Van Halen etc.

And Gene Simmons is a prick, I can't stand his ass: lol:

i was lucky enough to see kiss in concert 3x's back in the day. they put on awesome shows.

i

i thought paul stanley was fine.

eh, besides the shows. I just don't think there that great of musicians

Gunsnhalen said:

eh, besides the shows. I just don't think there that great of musicians

Well i will agree on most of whats been said. But i dont really think that KISS is in High Regard with critics as a great legendary band or even great musicians, i can probably count on one hand the times that i have heard Gene Simmons or Ace Frehley mentioned as good players, and almost never have i heard Peter Criss mentioned or Paul Stanley, but i will agree that they are camp and cheesey but there is some cred in what they did because someone has to do it. I dont think KISS take themselves too seriously, i mean these guys wear makeup and big boots and those outfits, so i look at them like many almost look at QUEEN, though QUEEN are light years beyond kiss in playing and just great music overall and talent, Queen had their share of camp and cheese. I do agree with U 1000% that there are so many from the 80's because of labels like "cheese" and "dated" that they are not looked at as good musicians, shit i think Kelly Keagy from Night Ranger is 100 times better drummer than Ringo Starr but night ranger is not the band the beatles are of course. But the point on that is the decade and that time 80's, overshadowed good musicians, because of the stigma of the times, yeah it was cheesey, but that like you said doesnt mean there werent good bands players and writers. I would take Bon Jovi on their worst days singing the phone book before i would even listen to a NickelBack song or Fall Out Boy or whatever 90's + on rock? type band there were.

But as far as KISS i agree on them but i think like Katy Perry, they dont really take themselves serious

lastdecember said:

Gunsnhalen said:

eh, besides the shows. I just don't think there that great of musicians

Well i will agree on most of whats been said. But i dont really think that KISS is in High Regard with critics as a great legendary band or even great musicians, i can probably count on one hand the times that i have heard Gene Simmons or Ace Frehley mentioned as good players, and almost never have i heard Peter Criss mentioned or Paul Stanley, but i will agree that they are camp and cheesey but there is some cred in what they did because someone has to do it. I dont think KISS take themselves too seriously, i mean these guys wear makeup and big boots and those outfits, so i look at them like many almost look at QUEEN, though QUEEN are light years beyond kiss in playing and just great music overall and talent, Queen had their share of camp and cheese. I do agree with U 1000% that there are so many from the 80's because of labels like "cheese" and "dated" that they are not looked at as good musicians, shit i think Kelly Keagy from Night Ranger is 100 times better drummer than Ringo Starr but night ranger is not the band the beatles are of course. But the point on that is the decade and that time 80's, overshadowed good musicians, because of the stigma of the times, yeah it was cheesey, but that like you said doesnt mean there werent good bands players and writers. I would take Bon Jovi on their worst days singing the phone book before i would even listen to a NickelBack song or Fall Out Boy or whatever 90's + on rock? type band there were.

But as far as KISS i agree on them but i think like Katy Perry, they dont really take themselves serious

Very good post LD

And very true, a lot of musicians are better than what The Beatles did... but they where not as experimental as The Beatles so maybe that is why that a band like that isn't as higly regarded.

Bruce Kulick, Vinnie vincent, John St. John, Eric Car etc. The 80's member of Kiss are way better musicans compared to Ace & Peter.

I'm a hardcore fan so keep that in mind but I think their first six studio albums are all great (maybe Dressed to Kill is a bit patchy). The problem with the first three (Kiss, Hotter Than Hell and Dressed to Kill) is that the production is very raw/muddy so they don't sound very good but I think you can stack Alive! (which features live songs from those albums) up against anything that their peers were doing and song for song it stands up. The next three studio albums (Destroyer, Rock and Roll Over and Love Gun) are every bit as good as the first three plus they sound great. Sure, there are a couple of not so great songs on each album but that was true of pretty much everyone. That era (1974-1977) was so great that the band have been living off of it ever since, particularly over the last fifteen years. Today when you see Kiss live probably seventy-five percent of the material is from the first six albums.

I think the problem was that by the late seventies and, especially, the early eighties, the quality of the songwriting really took a dive. Dynasty was a good album but after that came Unmasked and Music From: The Elder, two albums that featured music that their fans were not interested in hearing. Creatures of the Night was a brief return to the mid-seventies form and Lick it Up was nearly as good but too many fans had abandoned them circa 1979-1981 and few of them came back. After that was a terrible tetralogy (Animalize, Asylum, Crazy Nights and Hot in the Shade). With those albums the band really did become as bad as the critics thought they were. Each album featured one or two songs that became MTV hits but during this era it was painfully apparent that the band was trying to fit in with the pop metal movement which should have suited them but the songs just were not there. A big part of the blame for the lack of quality during the eighties needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of Gene Simmons. All of the singles circa 1984-1990 were Paul Stanley songs and the vast majority of Gene's contributions were very mediocre. They did make one last great album (Revenge) that is arguably as good as their seventies peak but once the reunion happened new music very much became a secondary concern to touring.

As far as musicianship goes, who cares? True, none of them were virtuosos and Peter was not a great rock drummer but this is rock and roll, not jazz! The Beatles were hardly fantastic musicians and people seem to like their music just fine. Ace may not have been the most technically gifted guitarist but he was hugely influential. Virtually every notable rock guitarist of the eighties and nineties has cited Ace as a primary influence.

One thing that I would have liked to see is for them to have pushed themselves a bit more in the mid-seventies. They made Destroyer with producer Bob Ezrin and it is the most "experimental" of their first six albums. Apparently Gene and Paul wanted to pursue that direction but Ace, who did not get along with Ezrin, was very much against it so instead of doing another album with Ezrin they worked with Eddie Kramer on the next two and made basic hard rock albums.

One thing that really hurts their reputation is the fact that they seem proud to be primarily driven by commercial gain. It's easy for critics to point at them and say it's all about the makeup and explosions but underneath all of the flash there are some great songs. If there was no substance would they be able to tour as often as they do playing setlists that consist of the same fifteen to twenty songs?

Gunsnhalen said:

Bruce Kulick, Vinnie vincent, John St. John, Eric Car etc. The 80's member of Kiss are way better musicans compared to Ace & Peter.

They may be better musicians but with the possible exception of Eric Carr as personalities they are all inferior. Celine Dion may technically be a much better singer but I would listen to a million Bob Dylan songs before I would voluntarily listen to one of hers (the sole exception being "With This Tear" ). The problem with the guitarists after Ace was that they seemed more interested in showing off how fast they could play rather than playing music that the listener really felt. Ace had his limitations but he was the perfect guitarist for the band. For proof look no further than the playing of current Kiss guitarist Tommy Thayer who basically does his best to copy Ace note for note.

rialb said:

I'm a hardcore fan so keep that in mind but I think their first six studio albums are all great (maybe Dressed to Kill is a bit patchy). The problem with the first three (Kiss, Hotter Than Hell and Dressed to Kill) is that the production is very raw/muddy so they don't sound very good but I think you can stack Alive! (which features live songs from those albums) up against anything that their peers were doing and song for song it stands up. The next three studio albums (Destroyer, Rock and Roll Over and Love Gun) are every bit as good as the first three plus they sound great. Sure, there are a couple of not so great songs on each album but that was true of pretty much everyone. That era (1974-1977) was so great that the band have been living off of it ever since, particularly over the last fifteen years. Today when you see Kiss live probably seventy-five percent of the material is from the first six albums.

I think the problem was that by the late seventies and, especially, the early eighties, the quality of the songwriting really took a dive. Dynasty was a good album but after that came Unmasked and Music From: The Elder, two albums that featured music that their fans were not interested in hearing. Creatures of the Night was a brief return to the mid-seventies form and Lick it Up was nearly as good but too many fans had abandoned them circa 1979-1981 and few of them came back. After that was a terrible tetralogy (Animalize, Asylum, Crazy Nights and Hot in the Shade). With those albums the band really did become as bad as the critics thought they were. Each album featured one or two songs that became MTV hits but during this era it was painfully apparent that the band was trying to fit in with the pop metal movement which should have suited them but the songs just were not there. A big part of the blame for the lack of quality during the eighties needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of Gene Simmons. All of the singles circa 1984-1990 were Paul Stanley songs and the vast majority of Gene's contributions were very mediocre. They did make one last great album (Revenge) that is arguably as good as their seventies peak but once the reunion happened new music very much became a secondary concern to touring.

As far as musicianship goes, who cares? True, none of them were virtuosos and Peter was not a great rock drummer but this is rock and roll, not jazz! The Beatles were hardly fantastic musicians and people seem to like their music just fine. Ace may not have been the most technically gifted guitarist but he was hugely influential. Virtually every notable rock guitarist of the eighties and nineties has cited Ace as a primary influence.

One thing that I would have liked to see is for them to have pushed themselves a bit more in the mid-seventies. They made Destroyer with producer Bob Ezrin and it is the most "experimental" of their first six albums. Apparently Gene and Paul wanted to pursue that direction but Ace, who did not get along with Ezrin, was very much against it so instead of doing another album with Ezrin they worked with Eddie Kramer on the next two and made basic hard rock albums.

One thing that really hurts their reputation is the fact that they seem proud to be primarily driven by commercial gain. It's easy for critics to point at them and say it's all about the makeup and explosions but underneath all of the flash there are some great songs. If there was no substance would they be able to tour as often as they do playing setlists that consist of the same fifteen to twenty songs?

I will give you Revenge, great record with some decent, clever songwriting on it. But still people look up to Ace & the boys all the time. And even with all you have said & others... i still feel they are overrated. Hell the people who usually mention Ace as someone they looked up to as when they where younger are usually better guitar players then him!

As for Kulick and John, that was the 80's and eh flashy solos where the ''thing'' then. Not the fanciest way of playing but still... i also forgot to mention i liked Frehleys comet:lurk: idk i just found Ace had a lot more control there. And hell i thought that he wrote some decent songs in that band to.

And either way there KIss, people go to see the flashy show, not to hear poetic Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder esque lyrics so yes i think they would be able to tour with little substance. Especially with tommy just copy Ace instead of bring his own thing. Which even though it was over the top flashy, Kulick & Vincet brought there own thing to Kiss.

Gunsnhalen said:

I will give you Revenge, great record with some decent, clever songwriting on it. But still people look up to Ace & the boys all the time. And even with all you have said & others... i still feel they are overrated. Hell the people who usually mention Ace as someone they looked up to as when they where younger are usually better guitar players then him!

As for Kulick and John, that was the 80's and eh flashy solos where the ''thing'' then. Not the fanciest way of playing but still... i also forgot to mention i liked Frehleys comet:lurk: idk i just found Ace had a lot more control there. And hell i thought that he wrote some decent songs in that band to.

And either way there KIss, people go to see the flashy show, not to hear poetic Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder esque lyrics so yes i think they would be able to tour with little substance. Especially with tommy just copy Ace instead of bring his own thing. Which even though it was over the top flashy, Kulick & Vincet brought there own thing to Kiss.

Overrated by who? Critically they are still reviled. Love them or hate them, based on their commercial success and influence they should have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame the first year they were eligible. They weren't and may never be because a handful of snobby critics have always hated them no matter how many albums they have sold or how many people still want to see them live. They may be overrated by their fans but isn't every artist? I don't see Kiss getting a ton of praise, I'm not sure who you are referring to when you claim they are overrated?

Sure, lots of the players that Ace influenced are "better" than him but isn't that to his credit? He helped to inspire talented musicians to pick up a guitar and we, as fans of rock music, are all the better for it.

Lyrically, sure, they are not Dylan but neither were Aerosmith. As songwriters I think Paul and to a lesser extent Gene and Ace are underrated, not overrated. Just about every song on the first six albums is good to great. Give the unplugged album a listen. No makeup, no explosions, no fake blood. Just a bunch of guys singing and playing great rock songs. If people were just interested in spectacle they would go to a monster truck rally, underneath everything there are great songs which is what the fans are attracted to.

Kiss is the equivalent of a superhero movie: you watch it because you want state-of-the-art CGI, explosions, engaging characters, over-the-top situations, epic storyline, etc

you listen to Kiss because you want big guitars, big drums, over-the-top frontmen, catchy as hell songs, explosions, chicks, fun, glamour, etc

undoubtedly the most entertaining rock band of all time

and, as rialb said, people often forget that their 70s classic songs are VERY good, KLASSIKS

and Kiss is one of those rare/fascinating bands that always has something to offer, even their worst albums are worthy if you wanna laugh...

I never saw KISS as being overrated. Sure they were popular, hyped, loved and hated...but I never saw them as overrated. Even in the 1970's when they were at their zenith they were still

being ripped apart by critics and non fans.

For as big as they were in the 1970's you really never saw them that much on TV. Radio pretty much ignored them (and still do to this day). They really didn't start getting their props until the

late 80's/early 90's. By then other bands starting mentioning them as influences.

You have to keep in mind the orginal 4 started out with nothing. I think they all really started to

perfect their craft (songwriting, playing instruments) as the band grew on. Eric Carr, Bruce, Vinnie

etc are better musicians but Peter and Ace to me were always the blood and guts of the 1970's KISS (while Gene and Paul were the brains).

As rialb said, if they were really overrated they would have been in the R.A.R.H.O.S by now. The whole "they're not getting enough votes" is bullshit (I think). I think because the fact that their

visual look and shows were so spectactular, their music was kind of considered secondary.

..Tickets sold better than their records (even though most of them were gold and platinum).

Bill Aucoin and Neil Bogart did wonders for them. KISS was a band that came out at the right time. They had mystique (which would have been lost with today's media and technology). And

even though it seems they followed trends, they gained new fans every few years. I think that was intentional for them to stay current.

Having said all that, I think after the new tour and CD they need to hang it up. As I mentioned in the other thread Paul's voice is sadly gone.

Kiss never set out to write symphonies. They set out to do live shows like no other. Look at a live rock show before they came onto the seen. Just guys standing around playing guitars. They made it something worth going to see. And even with the costumes, make up, pyro, flying etc, they always have, and up until this day, play live. They put on a show. Lots of people are turned off, jealous etc. of the money they are able to generate from KISS. But, they realized early on that they were not going to get rich from the record company. A lesson a lot of their contemporaries which they would have followed, as the personal wealth of Stanley and Simmons is close to half a billion dollars. You wont see a "Behind the music" with them laying tile or talking about getting screwed over by Mr record executive.

SPYZFAN1 said:

I never saw KISS as being overrated. Sure they were popular, hyped, loved and hated...but I never saw them as overrated. Even in the 1970's when they were at their zenith they were still

being ripped apart by critics and non fans.

For as big as they were in the 1970's you really never saw them that much on TV. Radio pretty much ignored them (and still do to this day). They really didn't start getting their props until the

late 80's/early 90's. By then other bands starting mentioning them as influences.

You have to keep in mind the orginal 4 started out with nothing. I think they all really started to

perfect their craft (songwriting, playing instruments) as the band grew on. Eric Carr, Bruce, Vinnie

etc are better musicians but Peter and Ace to me were always the blood and guts of the 1970's KISS (while Gene and Paul were the brains).

As rialb said, if they were really overrated they would have been in the R.A.R.H.O.S by now. The whole "they're not getting enough votes" is bullshit (I think). I think because the fact that their

visual look and shows were so spectactular, their music was kind of considered secondary.

..Tickets sold better than their records (even though most of them were gold and platinum).

Bill Aucoin and Neil Bogart did wonders for them. KISS was a band that came out at the right time. They had mystique (which would have been lost with today's media and technology). And

even though it seems they followed trends, they gained new fans every few years. I think that was intentional for them to stay current.

Having said all that, I think after the new tour and CD they need to hang it up. As I mentioned in the other thread Paul's voice is sadly gone.

At some point they will find their way into the Hall of Fame, but i agree that they are far from overrated, they basically arent ever mentioned in music conversations. I think the HYPE so to speak on them is self created, that is testament to Gene being a genius in marketing this band, say what you want about their "chops" but brains they do not lack. From day one they knew what they could accomplish.

Gunsnhalen said:

rialb said:

I'm a hardcore fan so keep that in mind but I think their first six studio albums are all great (maybe Dressed to Kill is a bit patchy). The problem with the first three (Kiss, Hotter Than Hell and Dressed to Kill) is that the production is very raw/muddy so they don't sound very good but I think you can stack Alive! (which features live songs from those albums) up against anything that their peers were doing and song for song it stands up. The next three studio albums (Destroyer, Rock and Roll Over and Love Gun) are every bit as good as the first three plus they sound great. Sure, there are a couple of not so great songs on each album but that was true of pretty much everyone. That era (1974-1977) was so great that the band have been living off of it ever since, particularly over the last fifteen years. Today when you see Kiss live probably seventy-five percent of the material is from the first six albums.

I think the problem was that by the late seventies and, especially, the early eighties, the quality of the songwriting really took a dive. Dynasty was a good album but after that came Unmasked and Music From: The Elder, two albums that featured music that their fans were not interested in hearing. Creatures of the Night was a brief return to the mid-seventies form and Lick it Up was nearly as good but too many fans had abandoned them circa 1979-1981 and few of them came back. After that was a terrible tetralogy (Animalize, Asylum, Crazy Nights and Hot in the Shade). With those albums the band really did become as bad as the critics thought they were. Each album featured one or two songs that became MTV hits but during this era it was painfully apparent that the band was trying to fit in with the pop metal movement which should have suited them but the songs just were not there. A big part of the blame for the lack of quality during the eighties needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of Gene Simmons. All of the singles circa 1984-1990 were Paul Stanley songs and the vast majority of Gene's contributions were very mediocre. They did make one last great album (Revenge) that is arguably as good as their seventies peak but once the reunion happened new music very much became a secondary concern to touring.

As far as musicianship goes, who cares? True, none of them were virtuosos and Peter was not a great rock drummer but this is rock and roll, not jazz! The Beatles were hardly fantastic musicians and people seem to like their music just fine. Ace may not have been the most technically gifted guitarist but he was hugely influential. Virtually every notable rock guitarist of the eighties and nineties has cited Ace as a primary influence.

One thing that I would have liked to see is for them to have pushed themselves a bit more in the mid-seventies. They made Destroyer with producer Bob Ezrin and it is the most "experimental" of their first six albums. Apparently Gene and Paul wanted to pursue that direction but Ace, who did not get along with Ezrin, was very much against it so instead of doing another album with Ezrin they worked with Eddie Kramer on the next two and made basic hard rock albums.

One thing that really hurts their reputation is the fact that they seem proud to be primarily driven by commercial gain. It's easy for critics to point at them and say it's all about the makeup and explosions but underneath all of the flash there are some great songs. If there was no substance would they be able to tour as often as they do playing setlists that consist of the same fifteen to twenty songs?

I will give you Revenge, great record with some decent, clever songwriting on it. But still people look up to Ace & the boys all the time. And even with all you have said & others... i still feel they are overrated. Hell the people who usually mention Ace as someone they looked up to as when they where younger are usually better guitar players then him!

As for Kulick and John, that was the 80's and eh flashy solos where the ''thing'' then. Not the fanciest way of playing but still... i also forgot to mention i liked Frehleys comet:lurk: idk i just found Ace had a lot more control there. And hell i thought that he wrote some decent songs in that band to.

And either way there KIss, people go to see the flashy show, not to hear poetic Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder esque lyrics so yes i think they would be able to tour with little substance. Especially with tommy just copy Ace instead of bring his own thing. Which even though it was over the top flashy, Kulick & Vincet brought there own thing to Kiss.

the thing is their peers in Rock love them, and worship them, critics do not, they almost are like Bon Jovi in that respect, they can sell out the desert ten times over but never get a decent review and will probably be waiting years and years till the Hall lets them in.

Revenge is a good record, i like the Raw sound, to be honest i would almost call this possibly their best album ever, outside of maybe Destroyer to me that is.

And once again i'll say it was the combo that made them, not great musicians on their own per say, good ones though, but when you put the originals together it was pretty good and they could play good music. alot like Paul said of the Beatles, it was more the combo of the four than anything, if you rate them as individuals Outside of Paul's Bass playing and George somewhat, they were average musicians, but great together, and great writers too.