One of Gene's Grabbers for sale

[lowend1]

I can't agree. College age and beyond (18-25) were the prime audiences for most rock groups of the late 60s and the 70s. Not so with Kiss. Everyone I knew who liked them back then were kids and younger teenagers. Every Kiss fan I know locally now was in that age group back then, and none of their wives or girlfriends are fans. Most of the other bands who are still around have broader appeal than just their original age group following.

NTTAWWT.  You like what you like, and there's no accounting for taste.

Too easy. This is fairly representative of a Kiss audience in the mid 70s.

[Dave W]

Oh for pity's sake. It's a posed photo.

Why are you so invested in this? You don't need to prove anything. You're a fan. I get it. No one's trying to talk you out of it.

[Hörnisse]

Let's get back to Grabber basses!

[OldManC]

while Alive! is more cohesive in terms of performance and production, and is a better studio record to boot.

 

[lowend1]

Oh for pity's sake. It's a posed photo.

Remind me not to post pics of the moon landing...😳
Dave, it's Cobo Hall - taken at one of the shows on that tour. It was shot by Fin Costello, one of the premier rock photogs of the era. He has been interviewed about its authenticity and confirmed the details. The two guys with the banner were at the show and were simply asked to stand with the audience behind them. That is the actual audience.
There is plenty about Alive! that was doctored, so if it was posed, there would be little reason to act like it was the real deal.

[Dave W]

And?

Yes, they got big crowds. Probably still do. Having young women pose with a sign doesn't change their demographic.

Meanwhile, there's hope: Texas president to Gene Simmons: You can’t trademark that hand gesture. University of Texas has plenty enough money to fight Gene's attempt to register a trademark.

[lowend1]

And?

And...
That's not a crowd full of kids and young teens. I would guess that the average age of the visible people in the audience would be around 20. That was your point re their fan base - that they were primarily kids, no? The shift in demographics came later, like in '78-'79, with all the merchandising.
Those are guys holding the sign, btw.

I could care less if Gene gets to copyright the gesture. I don't even think Gene cares. His primary concern is probably that his name is being mentioned.

[Dave W]

Your x-ray vision can tell the age of the crowd. Impressive! No doubt all the kids in that audience drove themselves to the arena.

In other news, Gene will be suing Summer's Eve because he's now a bigger douche than all the products they've ever sold.

Aaaaand I'm done here.

[Hörnisse]

I drove myself to Palmer Auditorium to see them in 1984.  I was 22 at the time.

[bassilisk]

In other news, Gene will be suing Summer's Eve because he's now a bigger douche than all the products they've ever sold.

That nearly got the V8 I was drinking to come out my nose!!!!

[uwe]

This discussion here reminds me of one in the NME in 1976 whether Kiss were a credible rock band or not. One argument against them was that they were "a hype". To which one fan who liked their London concert quipped: "Of course they are a hype, how else are you gonna promote a band with 7" platform shoes, full theatrical make-up and, uhum, leather bat wings?"      That sums it up.

That said, I still can't get over the fact that Dave thought the two fresh-faced kids on the back of Alive were girls ... a little long hair and angelic looks disorient you that much, Dave, tsk, tsk, tsk ... ? 

Kiss were conceptually geared toward a teenage audience - as were The Beatles btw in their first few years -, but would take money from anyone else who would pay to see them. I was 15 in 1976 when I first heard of them - weaned on Alice Cooper, their look intrigued me from the start. I bought Alive and Dressed to Kill and I immediately realized "These guys are good fun and their look is spectacular, but they won't be a new Deep Purple, Led Zep or Black Sabbath.", their music was heavy-handed (even for a hard rock act) and lacked finesse (even for a hard rock act). Back then no one above my age took Kiss remotely serious (they could have played the most sophisticated prog rock - with that look, no chance ...) - people at my school my age liked Jethro Tull, CSN&Y, Mike Oldfield, ELP, Pink Floyd, Genesis (Peter Gabriel era), Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever or Frank Zappa, I was an outcast for liking Sweet, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple and Status Quo - which were all perceived as blue collar teeny bopper bands. When I one day turned up dressed as Paul Stanley during carnival I was almost stoned (and I don't mean drugged!) by my classmates. 

However, I would imagine that Kiss in their home market (they only toured Germany first in 1976, shortly after the release of Destroyer)



had initially in their formative years an older audience by sheer necessity - as they played every shithole in the US as a (pretty soon feared) opening act for bands such as Foghat or BÖC who all had a more mature audience. People tend to forget that Kiss won over people live first - and only then people began listening to their albums. But I would imagine that any college kid buying Alive (and finding it musically less satisfactory than, say, live albums from Grand Funk Railroad or Deep Purple) would very soon have his little bro or sis drool over the cover. Kiss as a concept fascinated children and teenagers.

[Hörnisse]

At a Halloween 1978 party that my band played I went as Paul even though I was the bass player.  Well, he did play bass on Love Gun among others. 

[OldManC]

A guy that was eventually my closest brother in law was the one that brought over Alive for me to hear for the first time. He was your age, Uwe, and was steeped in American hard rock of the time (and Zep, Scorpions, Priest, which all fit the bill as well). The teeny-bopper epithet got thrown at them pretty early but I didn't see them embracing it all that much until Gene and Bill (probably) recognized it as an untapped revenue stream around '79, with the Dynasty marketing campaign.

I have no problem that KISS aren't everyone's cup of tea. That was never a factor in my liking them. The thing that I was pointing out earlier in the thread is that (I believe) they deserve credit either way in that almost nobody who is a rock music fan in any way is in the middle with them, and even their detractors often spend a weird amount of time and effort talking about them and feeling the need to argue with anyone who challenges their view (which, admittedly, diehard KISS fans do as well). I haven't seen that nearly as much with Aerosmith fans, or Styx fans, or whoever. Love them or hate them, for whatever reason (and even now after all these years) the one thing they usually aren't is ignored.

[Alanko]

I do find it interesting, however, that for someone who was born long after Kiss' initial heyday, you have spent an impressive amount of time analyzing not only their musical abilities, but their lyrical content, stage presentation, motivation, and their place in rock-n-roll history - and yet you can't seem to grasp what it is that made them so successful.

It took me about five minutes, or three Kiss tunes, to grasp their musical abilities, lyrical content, stage presentation and motivation. A further five minutes cemented the deal.

Nothing for me not to grasp here. They were successful in the same way that Wrestling is successful, or monster trucks flattening a line of cars. Attention-grabbing macho posturing in a controlled environment, with enough theatrics for kids with limited attention span. Kiss had the stomping rock assault of Slade, but with the added bonus of a gory and extreme stageshow. The same shit that got us all chatting about Slipknot and co when I was a young adolescent. Somebody's older brother (it always was) went to a Slipknot show, and they threw live animals into the crowd and refused to play a note until the crowd had torn these animals to shreds! The same myth was spread around about Kiss, apparently. Shock, revulsion, the idea that you are witnessing something a bit taboo, exciting and off-grid, and you parents almost certainly don't like it. Kiss are satanists! Kiss perform rituals onstage! Kiss kill animals onstage!!! All that nonsense.

My issue with Kiss is their extreme level of money-mindedness. Their music was only a vector, or one of a competing range of elements of their existence, in a bid to make lots of money. They must be up there with the Beatles in terms of having a sea of tacky merchandise made in their image? Only the Beatles were innovative artists, and Kiss made brainless pounding tunes where the chorus is simply the name of the track yelled four or eight times... big difference.

I'm not saying Rock 'n' Roll has to be cerebral. My favorite AC/DC album is Dirty Deeds fer fack's sake. Of that era I like Deep Purple, UFO, Uriah Heep (!), Montrose, Status Quo... there is a whole raft of brainless double-denim Dad Rock I can listen to and enjoy. Kiss don't sound that good to simply sit down and listen to, because so much of their dubious craft was spent on the visuals (and making sure they always translated into money). The singers don't have iconic voices, the lead guitarist simply plunders the Chuck Berry phrase book, the bass is a groove-less farting plod and the drummer is also totally non noteworthy. I can't simply go to my local enormodome the next time they're in town and watch Gene spit blood capsules down his bass, so I have to rely on recordings and videos to make any sort of judgement. I'm sure they were significant in the '70s but their sound, stagecraft and image have aged worse than most of their contemporaries in my opinion.

[OldManC]

Their music was only a vector, or one of a competing range of elements of their existence, in a bid to make lots of money.

Besides the fact that being at least somewhat monetarily successful at what you do is the whole friggin' point of trying to make a living (unless you're a trust fund baby it kind of has to be), that's completely untrue; which is probably why you're getting the pushback.

Gene's background and total comfort in coming across in all the hideously un-PC ways his background is described is the only thing that can be linked to your statement. Every single one of these guys had the EXACT same trajectory as most of us in high school and afterward. They all got a guitar or drums, had garage bands, and then moved on to gigging bands and were eventually in bands that got record company attention. They were gigging musicians for years before KISS was even formed. Gene had other "real" jobs too because that's how he was raised, but the other three were typical of any other wanna-be rock star of the time with dead end jobs that really only supported their music habits, which took 100% of their passion.

Wicked Lester were signed (and both Gene and Paul not only did session work but had writing credits as well). Chelsea (sp?) (Peter's pre-KISS band) were signed. Both recorded full albums paid for by a record company. Whether they sucked or not only makes them like the thousands of other bands that got signed and never went anywhere. At least one of Ace's earlier bands was signed and I've heard the singles they recorded in the late 60s or very early 70s.

When they formed KISS they were no different than the Dolls and others in the NYC glam music scene, except two of them were far more disciplined. As for image, they just wanted to stand out. With the help of early band management and supporters they developed something different, and yes, they wanted fame and fortune. Just like every single other "rock star" that ever existed. The make-up, the costumes, the stage moves, were all inspired by contemporary music and show business culture. Enough of those involved have written books now that anyone who cares to know can find out where it all came from other than the four guys.

Music wasn't the vector, it was the thing. Gene and Paul were Beatle fans just like Ozzy was, and Alice was, and Don Henley was, and Don McLean was. They saw the Ed Sullivan shows and heard the albums and wanted to do that too. Same story as 90% of every other band that came up in the late 60's until the late 70s or so. You can think they suck. You can dislike their shows and merch, but does that mean the Beatles (who you mentioned) were only in it for the money? Was their music just a vector?

Gene and Paul may only be a nostalgia band now (where your critique has some merit), but the band that sold a million copies of Alive in 1975 was anything but. They were hungry and working their asses off to live the dream. And it's that band that everyone here (defending them) is referring to.