Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Cellar' started by SixAngryStrings, Oct 25, 2011.
Got the new disc today & I love it.
No problems here.
Nice to see my original "favorite rock band"... KISS in a live web broadcast Wednesday night from the set of David Letterman. If you missed it you can see it at CBS.COM. They did about 9-10 songs in a 45 min. set.
Hard to believe it has been almost 35 years since I say them live in concert (my first ever concert). Dad took me and 2 friends to Huntington, WV in the middle of a January snow storm! Ace Frehley is the reason I play a Les Paul guitar to this day.
I have several screen shots from the broadcast here: mcquain.com - /lespaul/favorites/kiss/KISS_LiveLetterman/
Monster totally KICKS ASS, I don't care what anybody says. I really love every track on the album. Wall of Sound is a really cool riff.
Some more old shots from the guys at KISS Island:
Also, found this FB page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/KISS-The-Original-Fearsome-Foursome-1973-1979/183879068310519
Loads of old pics; what's really cool is they date the pics, where possible. Some examples:
Monster arrived to me on the 9th and I listened to it front to back and I was pleasantly surprised.
It's going up on the music blog on Thursday.
Who's your favorite band? Be honest. Mine is Kiss.
I have been listening to this band since I was about 7 years old. So, it's hard for me to look at this album objectively, but this is my subjective opinion on everything anyway right?
I do love all eras of the band at least to a point, but not to the point that they can do no wrong and everything they do is awesome.
I need to make a couple other quick points. Ace Frehley is my favorite guitar player and I have a real hard time seeing Tommy Thayer dressed up as Ace Frehley. It's not right. Now that I have those two things on the table, I can begin in earnest.
Monster is the second album by the world's highest paid Kiss Tribute band, Kiss. When I first heard Sonic Boom, I was unimpressed, but as time wore on, I grew to enjoy the album more and more and I accepted the fact that even with their new lineup, Paul could still write some good tunes. The Gene tracks on that album were just terrible and Tommy's song was about lightning and Eric's song was ok, even if the lyrics didn't make a whole lot sense.
<click for more>
So since the Who is missing 2 original members, the Stones don't have all the original members, does that make them tribute bands too? Wahhh, Ace and Peter aren't in KISS anymore. Peter's drumming sucked since the Reunion Tour, and Ace didn't want to do it anymore, plain and simple. IIRC, Ace is the one who suggested Tommy.
i don't readed all this forum (for now...there'are a lot of posts...), but i want, for now, tell this:
KISS are the greatest in the world...!
And i think too they are a legend, just beatles, or rolling stones, or led zeppelin, doors, jimi hendrix, ecc.. different stuff then tokiohotel and shit like this...
Destroyer, alive2, ecc.. in unesco world heritage right-now...!!!
I have to say I really like Gene's 78 solo album. I like it from the first time i heard it. Its totally not KISS Sound，but i like it just cuz its very melodic kinda in a Beatles way
Wait a minute.....you can't just come on MLP, find a KISS thread, and post that you love Gene's solo album on you very first post and expect people to take you seriously.
expect people to take me seriously？nope,never thought about this.
[SIZE=-1]I was just surprised[/SIZE] none here like the best one of KISS '78 solo albums.
I agree that they're a tribute band. If you look at the setlist from their Cruise gigs, only two songs on it were post-1977. Two songs.
That speaks volumes about what they think they represent. They are an homage to the younger version of the band, and nothing more.
To answer your question: the Who, if they toured tomorrow, would be a tribute band too. The Stones? Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on whether they're bringing new material to the table, or not. When Kiss stops touring on past glory, and puts their chips on their current output, then they won't be a tribute band.
Honestly, they should have hung it up in 1984, at the latest.
I gotta tell you, I wish they played more of the obscure stuff that they play on the cruises, and more from Revenge forward...
Thump, I also have to disagree about them being a tribute band. Members come and go, from them to Van Halen to Journey to the two I originally listed. Nobody calls then tribute bands. But I hear what you are saying. We can agree to disagree. LOL
The difference between KISS and other bands changing members is that they don't make those other members protray someone else. The Who doesn't make Zak Starkey pretend to be Keith moon. The Stones don't make Ronnie Wood or didn't make Mick Taylor pretend to be Brian Jones.
I'm not saying that they're a tribute because they only have two original members. I'm saying they're a tribute because they're not doing anything very current in the live setting.
That might change with the new album, I dunno. But when even their costumes hearken back to 1976-77, they're not moving ahead. They're paying tribute to a past that's 35 years gone. It's just my view, and I know that not everyone shares it. But I think it's just as valid as any other view put out there.
I used to be a huge KISS fan. Then I hit puberty.
I'd rather they are a "live tribute" band still put out new music which i like.
but if they quit after 1984, they'd just be a once popular band and forgotten by most folks
The Jimmy Kimmel Live Channel - YouTube
the meaning of your words...?