Just listened to this album for the first time in my entire life...

So one thing I notice is that a lot of Kiss’s early fan base started to fall away at some point.

When did some of you start to lose interest and why?
 
smitty_p said:
So one thing I notice is that a lot of Kiss’s early fan base started to fall away at some point.

When did some of you start to lose interest and why?
Click to expand...

For me, it was when their sound changed. Love Gun was the last album that sounded like Kiss to me, and even that one has some fluff on it. After that, all downhill. The ‘80’s no makeup stuff in particular is tragic.
 
Dynasty---- to Disco
Cratures of the Night -- again --- to pop-- fluffish
The Elder -- like "Kiss wants to be Pink Floyd" -- or something---???? probably my LEAST favorite--
UNMASKED had a couple decent songs...
I was losing interest at that point off on other tangents-- but still purchased
Animalize
Lick it up
and Asylum was the last tape of theirs I bought--- all three just basically sat in the cassette case after the first "listen through" ---

When Frehleys Comet came out I bought those cassettes--- (I think there were 2-- maybe 3)

and I actually bought the Vinnie Vincent Invasion tape (one of the hired guns in KISS after Ace) but it got little play time ----


I would have to say --- Love Gun was --- the last "TRUE" KISS album ---

the rest have just been a $ grab---

the bands obvious unraveling was clear in Dynasty ----
 
Great information. Thanks. I'd love to hear other peoples' reactions, too.

But, let me play devil's advocate for a second...

Given the changes in music beginning in the late '70s and moving into the '80s, how should they have proceeded? Was it a mistake to try to adapt to changing styles? If they had stayed pretty much the same, do you think they would have incurred the opposite criticism...i.e., that they weren't changing with the times and they keep putting out the same sounding stuff?
 
Probably ---

just because I didnt care for Dynasty (though I got the album for Chsristmas -- I was 10--anything KISS was a holiday no brainer) I did listen to it -- and --
I really liked 2000 man --(Stones remake)
and the MUCH HATED by the KISS faithful
"I was made for loving you" -- was TOTALLY DISCO--- it almost broke the top 10 in singles charts and was "on paper" one of the bands "biggest popular hits"
-- so from a MARKETING stand point it was needed -- it was smart and KISS is STILL around today -- -SOME people (like my younger sibling) only knew the POST make up kiss-- and prefers that version of KISS to the older early years---

So they morphed--- they retained the old die hards--- and they added a NEW fan base--- they PULLED some from the HAIR BAND crowd they SUCKED in some from the DISCO crowd

DID I TURN MY BACK ON THEM because they made 5 albums I didnt really care for----??? no-- was I personally "insulted or butthurt" ?? no--I just listen to the stuff I like and NOT the stuff I dont --- :) they made roughly 9 or 10 albums I liked -- PLUS the 4 solo albums -- PLUS Aces spin offs--- hell -- thats ENOUGH rock to roll on to for decades :)
 
Like Smitty mentions wanting to understand KISS thru his process, I will add some of the Kevin Bacon type 7 shades of separation till one can be linked in DNA to KISS. I will start with RUSH and move on.

 
smitty_p said:
Great information. Thanks. I'd love to hear other peoples' reactions, too.

But, let me play devil's advocate for a second...

Given the changes in music beginning in the late '70s and moving into the '80s, how should they have proceeded? Was it a mistake to try to adapt to changing styles? If they had stayed pretty much the same, do you think they would have incurred the opposite criticism...i.e., that they weren't changing with the times and they keep putting out the same sounding stuff?
Click to expand...

Adapting to the musical flavor of the week can be a career killer.
Peter Frampton comes to mind.
 
Here's an interesting interview with Paul Stanley back when they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

 
smitty_p said:
Great information. Thanks. I'd love to hear other peoples' reactions, too.

But, let me play devil's advocate for a second...

Given the changes in music beginning in the late '70s and moving into the '80s, how should they have proceeded? Was it a mistake to try to adapt to changing styles? If they had stayed pretty much the same, do you think they would have incurred the opposite criticism...i.e., that they weren't changing with the times and they keep putting out the same sounding stuff?
Click to expand...

I liked "Lick It Up" and "Heaven's On Fire." I think I really started taking Kiss seriously once the face paint came off.
 
smitty_p said:
Given the changes in music beginning in the late '70s and moving into the '80s, how should they have proceeded? Was it a mistake to try to adapt to changing styles? If they had stayed pretty much the same, do you think they would have incurred the opposite criticism...i.e., that they weren't changing with the times and they keep putting out the same sounding stuff?
Click to expand...

Impossible to know, but the change in sound was unforgivable to me as a fan. When they went to Disco in particular - that was literally last straw kind of stuff as I despised Disco and everything it represented. I think the early Kiss fans would have preferred they not trod the more commercial territory. Like Adrian said, it really felt like nothing more than a cash grab, then and now. To me, more of the same style of music would have been ideal, I mean, AC/DC has made the exact same record 17 times and they have a committed and loyal fan base.
 
Robert Herndon said:
I liked "Lick It Up" and "Heaven's On Fire." I think I really started taking Kiss seriously once the face paint came off.
Click to expand...

That also killed it for me. They had a unique, singlular identity...then tossed is aside for yet more '80's neon and leopard print. They just looked like every other pop-metal band happening at the time, and let's not fool ourselves, those guys were wearing just as much makeup as Kiss, but doing it like women instead of the Kabuki look Kiss had.

I lost a ton of respect for them when they took the makeup off.
 
gball said:
That also killed it for me. They had a unique, singlular identity...then tossed is aside for yet more '80's neon and leopard print. They just looked like every other pop-metal band happening at the time, and let's not fool ourselves, those guys were wearing just as much makeup as Kiss, but doing it like women instead of the Kabuki look Kiss had.

I lost a ton of respect for them when they took the makeup off.
Click to expand...

Ironically; I like Ghost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top