Originally Posted by scott free (Post 10542563)

One more point before I give up on this mfer (buncha ****ing stiffs the lot of ya)... people like to complain about their musicianship, yet COUNTLESS successful artists count them among their biggest musical influences.

People also like to complain about "lowbrow" subjects... tell me again what the Beatles sang about for over half their existence... I'll go ahead and tell you, it was GIRLS AND PARTYING AND HAVING A GOOD TIME, their best stuff was about GIRLS.

Same as the Stones right now, same as AC/DC and Van Halen since forever, same as ALL of these mfers... rock n roll can be boiled down to two basic subjects, and those basic subjects are SEX AND WOMEN.

So spare me the lectures about "they were just a party band"... EVERY good rock act is a party band.

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief (Post 10542409)

Maybe more influential then Van Halen. Not The Who or The Doors though.

The problem with KISS is that all their songs sound a whole lot better when preformed by other people.

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10542730)

This comparison :facepalm:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 10542759)

I love that New York Groove song...never even realized it was KISS until they played it on that Tattoo show opening a few years back.

Love KISS, not highbrow, but it's a lot of fun. Even their 80s hair metal stuff I like.

Originally Posted by scott free (Post 10542768)

What in the hell are you TALKING about? Be specific, please.

Its only rock n roll... some of you people REALLY overthink all of this.

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10542796)

I'm talking about mentioning KISS in the same sentence as Van Halen, AC/DC and the Rolling Stones. I don't hate KISS, but c'mon...
KISS's main influence is in the field of theatrics--the make up, the explosions, Gene breathing fire, etc.

Originally Posted by scott free (Post 10542805)

wrong, Wrong, WRONG... you and millions of others have been convinced of this opinion without actually listening to the albums, like so many musicians who you surely respect have.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...rea358806.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...uence-20140403

And bear in mind, Mike is just one of countless rock stars who consider KISS huge musical influences, its not just some weird joke Cosmo... these guys were ****ING HUGE, just because you were unaware doesn't mean that this world wasn't exisiting out of your sight.

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10542817)

I've listened to the albums. I own some of them. I know they were ****ing huge--and a huge part of that was the image.

Motley Crue > KISS

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10542796)

I'm talking about mentioning KISS in the same sentence as Van Halen, AC/DC and the Rolling Stones. I don't hate KISS, but c'mon...
KISS's main influence is in the field of theatrics--the make up, the explosions, Gene breathing fire, etc.

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 10542821)

I have zero hate for KISS, good for them. I don't know if you can really compare them to stuff like The Who though. Just a different thing, tough to compare. I think The Who belongs up there with the Beatles, Beach Boys, etc. If for nothing else writing "Tommy," but there's a million other reasons. It's all subjective though.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542861)

That's just not true. The theatrics were a big influence, yes. But the band, due to exposure and marketing, were just huge.

Musically, I wouldn't put them in the same sentence with VH or AC/DC, no.

Buy when you read/see interview after interview with musicians who say the first album they bought with their own money was "destroyer" and the first concert they went to was KISS, the level of influence is undeniable.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542871)

You're talking about musicianship and artistic contribution, not influence.

"Tommy" is a masterpiece. Nothing KISS did comes close. But millions of budding musicians didn't ever say "I want to do THAT".