Grables wrote:I don't despise them, there are many, many more worse bands out there - and I'm still gonna watch them. I just don't think they're legends in the slightest. Paul Stanley is cool, but Gene Simmons is a dirty money grabbing Jew. None of them are particularly great musicians, and the brand is more famous than their music. They maybe huge, but I don't think they are an important part of the evolution of music, nor are they that influential. They're not exactly up there with Deep Purple, Queen or Van Halen if you get what I mean.
Again you are entitled to your opinion,but Stanley is one of the best front men in the business. You obviously dont read a lot of the rock mags because the number of people who first started to play guitar or want to be a rock star because they saw KISS when growing up is endless.
It always raises a smile with me when people claim they arent really good musicians,go watch Kiss Unplugged or KISS Symphony and come back and tell me they cant play.
Some people just cant see past the make up,no problem with that,but to slag a band off when you have probably only heard ten or so of their songs is lame.People have wrote KISS off many times and they still continue to confound the critics,strangely the press have warmed to them over the past few years.Maybe they have at last realised there is more to this band than confetti and fireworks.
So questions for you,Gene is a money grabber? Do you think Queen are grabbing money by using a revolving door policy on their lead singer?
Why do you think Van Halen have been more influential than Kiss?(you do know who was responsible fortheir first demo dont you?)