Well, the good thing about rock and roll is that it doesn't have to be deep or thought provoking to kick ass. And on their early albums (thanks to Ace and Peter Criss in no small part) kick ass they did. Songs like Black Diamond, Goin Blind, 100,000 Years etc weren't exactly deep but they were as gritty and pulse pounding as it has ever got.
I'm not going to make excuses for their later bubblegum crap but those first three albums (except by production standards) have absolute rock and roll gems on them.
Oh, I agree 100%.
I love KISS, always have. I own a large chunk of their stuff, and doubt I'll ever part with it.
I wasn't crazy about the MTV years, and I've never owned anything from the
Animalize /
Hot In The Shade years. It wasn't all bad. It just seemed kinda blah.
I think I had a mild coronary the first time I saw Paul Stanley with satin gloves with mini Bon Jovi-type tassles on them. Or Gene Simmons with an Olivia Newton John headband. The thing was glittery, for pete's sake.
So, in reference to this thread, I'd have to admit, the way they looked on those covers may have had something to do with it, actually.
The music, ultimately, was the decider for me, though. Asylum is a great cd, Big drums, big bass, big vocals (one of Paul Stanley's finest works, I think)even with Paul Stanley's white go-go boots.
The rock writers seem to buy it, to an extent. Look when they released
Revenge. Back to the black leather, and they hailed it as the return of the prodigal sons.
The album itself was a little rougher around the edges, and did have a harder edge, but it was the
look that got most the attention.
