I tell you, lots of great discussion here the last few days....Before I completely forget: Under The Gun: Thrills In The Night: I love 80's screechy Paul, 'nuff said. Excellent question. I would argue it is KISS' fault, because they equate sales with artistic success. And it's not that records like "The Elder" bombed completely, as even KISS' lowest selling albums back in the day still moved 100K+ or more copies, and for most acts in that era those numbers are nothing to sneeze at. There are plenty of cases where an artist has dictated their own direction, and the fans (and their record companies) were basically"bedamned," figuratively speaking. For example, looking at some of my favorite artists--Springsteen has released several acoustic albums that sold nowhere near what his rock records did, and he did whole tours without the E Street band, including two that were solo acoustic. Prince changed his name and did tours without playing his "hits." Dylan is touring now, basically playing a set that is heavy on Sinatra covers, and about 85% of the material is post-1990. I am not in Metal as much as the rest of you, but didn't Maiden do a whole tour where they basically played no "hits?" And then there's Neil Young... I think KISS fans have shown a willingness to have the band change--as I have stated before, my favorite albums are basically post-1980 (HTH excepted, they are LIU, COTN and Revenge), and I really like "The Elder," "Monster" and "Carnival Of Souls." Many others on this forum like those records as well. However those types of changes do not immediately equate to sales success. I do give the band a bit of a pass because, as I and others have mentioned, they weren't in all that good financial shape throughout their career, but maybe after "The Elder," rather bagging the tour completely, they should have just bit the bullet, dropped the flashy stage show and started playing clubs and theaters again, with emphasis on the music only, to promote it? It would be interesting to see what the band would have done if "Lick It Up" had flopped, considering that "Animalize" is basically a doubling-down on that format.
UNDER THE GUN I've always liked this speedy rocker. I know Eric liked speed and thrash metal so not sure if that was an influence here as he helped write it. Along with I've Had Enough I don't mind Kiss thrashing about. They would do more speed songs on the next few albums and I don't think they worked as well for those when they tried to repeat the formula. I don't think Paul is screechy here and sings a pretty confident lead. Mark does a very buzzy solo but it works OK due to how how fast the song is. Again Eric decides not to just thrash it out on the drums and does a pretty complex drum pattern throughout. That's why I love the guy! This was another song that made my Kiss Kompilation. THRILLS IN THE NIGHT Another song that always made my Kompilation tapes. This song would've been a bigger hit but as stated earlier the verses here are too wordy and he's trying to fit too much into them. Also, the slapped together video didn't help matters. It looks really cheap and the sound is barely synced up to the actual video. How bad was the concept where they had to cut all that footage? It was only on Light Rotation on MTV for under 2 months in Feb/March 1985. Mark's guitar work is pretty good here especially the lead intro. I think the chorus is super catchy but unfortunately a few flaws do hold it back a bit. Undubbed live version here from Uncensored
Though I hated the anemic sound of the guitars on UNMASKED, it feels like a masterpiece next to ANIMALIZE. To these ears, the quality of the songwriting is leagues ahead of this record we're on now.
I stated prior in the thread the opening riff and chorus of "Tears Are Falling" are reminiscent to that of "Magic Touch"; I definitely don't hear much of "Nowhere to Run" in the song, however.
Be honest with me here, did you intend for "I tell you" to sound like a Paul Stanley stage rap? Because I totally read that with Paul's voice in my head. Man, am I through the looking glass or what? I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the obligation of management and the artist themselves to not get caught assuming every day is going to be as sunny as today. In the KISS and Sell book you can read about the office space (and employees obviously) that Bill Aucoin funded with KISS's success. Then he's signing other artists and nobody is bringing in any money other than KISS. So suddenly KISS goes from touring with a skeleton crew of guys to (in a matter of a couple of years) being responsible for a business that is employing hundreds of people. At that point, how does the artist decide to ignore sales and follow their muse wherever it takes them? There's some blame on management for sure. But this is Bill Aucoin, he funded them when they had nothing. I'm sure on one hand they felt like they owed him. But we hear so much about Gene and Paul being business minded. They should have said "wait wait wait, what is paying for all this?" and "how long can this last at this level of success?".
At this point, with two Simmons/Weissman songs left on Animalize, I'm inclined to agree with you. Animalize has been very poor so far.
It's not always WHAT the lyrics say - I think we all know plenty of great rock songs/bands that have lyrics that look pretty dumb on the page - SOMEtimes it's just as much (or more) about how they are delivered. Me personally, I think KISS comes off best, in terms of sexual content, when there's a playfulness about it both in terms of the actual lyric AND the delivery. Room Service - baby I could use a meal That's playful on the page and the sound bounces along. Paul does a nice job with that. On the other hand, an older Paul OR Gene don't have the charm to pull off lyrics that are both base and overt and certainly not with a touch of anger. Diamond Dave, they are not. You need to have a certain type of charisma to pull that off, imo and they don't have it in that dept. One of the reasons Leonard Cohen singing about sex successfully well into his old age was that he was such a fine lyricist that he always found a way to sound honest and age appropriate and somehow still ring true. Jesus, I just referenced Leonard Cohen in a post about a KISS lyric.
They were gods when I was in middle school (Perry Middle in Miramar Florida). Kiss stickers all over the lockers which the custodians quickly removed, some kids came with Kiss makeup. For $20, Johnny Depp would forge for you a perfect set of autographs using the signatures from the Alive album. He once came to school dressed as Ace Frehley in a costume his mother made the day he and his friends performed at the school talent show as Kiss. If I kept the school newspaper that had pictures, that would be great blackmail material . My favorite albums are the first up to Love Gun, they lost the spark with Dynasty and the flame with Unmasked. I did like the proggyness with The Elder, and the comeback with COTN and LIU. Everything after that (Crazy Nights, Animalise, Asylum) all sound like 80's cheese rock. Revenge was great, and everything after that was weak and cheesey.
THRILLS IN THE NIGHT Don't have much to add--a Paul song in the vein of "Magic Touch," some of the solo album, and perhaps a dash of something from Killers. The chorus sounds familiar from something else, but it kind of slows down the momentum of the verses. I like St. John's solo and I think Bruce did a good job of miming to it. On Psycho Circus (which we'll probably get to around late September ), there's a similar Paul song called "Dreaming," which I really hate. It sounds like so much of a parody of Paul song, it's almost more like a postmodernist deconstruction.
I'm now a bit more reluctant to make too strong of a declaration about material that I haven't heard in ages, thanks to this thread, but my memory is that about 2/3 of the material on the two Firm albums was actually pretty good. Not earth-shattering by any means, but it was enjoyable in its day. I saw them on both of their tours, and enjoyed both shows.
OK, but I'm sure you're smart enough to know that KISS' "dangerous, post-apocalyptic" look was about as authentic as when (fill in the blank with your favorite millionaire actor) plays a bad-ass in some gritty Hollywood thriller.
Well, considering that it's not even a song (just one verse repeated over and over), it's doubtful that it's ever been performed. I wouldn't be surprised if some tribute band has busted it out, however, just as a gag at some point!
If you go back and read my critiques, I raved about the songs on UNMASKED. My problem is with Poncia's production, which reduces this to almost a "children's sing-a-long record" level, especially with respect to the guitars. It's embarrassing, and Paul and Gene will tell you so, too. But the songs? They're of exceptionally high quality. I had 8 of the 11 songs with a score of "8" or higher.
If you're saying you went to high school with Johnny Depp, and that he was a big KISS fan, you're going to have to give us a few more details than this! You can't just drop that little tidbit of info and then walk back out the door!
Very well said. It isn't necessarily the crude lyrics themselves that "rub me the wrong way" (sorry!). Sometimes it is the delivery that alters the meaning. I just find that starting with the Lick It Up album, the tone of the lyrics changes. Instead of approaching sex in a fun, humorous way, as they did in the past, both Gene and Paul frequently seem to come across as angry and hyper macho. The new delivery changes everything - the sex sounds more ugly, mean-spirited, and degrading. When you also consider that Gene and Paul are older, it also comes across as creepy. At this point, they weren't just a couple of young, immature guys having fun. They were almost middle aged in the mid 80's. It just doesn't fit anymore. That isn't to say they shouldn't have sung about sex anymore, but they definitely needed to tone things down. Instead, they ramped things up considerably. I also agree with @SizzleVonSizzleton in that Kiss could have been a bit more subtle in the 80's. Not a lot, but a little would have helped. I can't think of any other 80's pop metal acts who sang about hitting the highway "doing 69." Why not take the time to come up with a less obvious, ham-fisted way of saying the same thing instead?
It wasn't intentional, but I have been subconsciously imitating Paul Stanley for years. While I do agree that Paul and Gene bear a share of the burden, I would say their business manager should have planned for "rainy days." To some extent they did, as I remember a 3 Sides episode awhile back where they discussed some of the long-term bonds KISS investing in or something like that. But while it's great to plan for retirement, you also gotta plan for what you are going to do next week if you get canned from your job or the company you work for goes belly-up.
I also had the Destroyer mirror - got it when I was in the 4th grade. It is hanging right now in our master bathroom.
Thrills In The Night - A weak, uninspired rehash of Nowhere To Run, this track is calling out for a hook. Everything just sounds bland, watered down. I agree with the others who pointed out that Paul is using his Elder voice in this track. That is partly why I dislike the song so much. I remember when I first bought Animalize on cassette that I had to double check that the batteries on my tape player weren't dying. His voice almost sounds like it had been slowed down, even though I don't really think it was. This track was a very weak single, although I must admit there really wasn't a viable alternative on the album.
I owned two different KISS belt buckles in the late 70's, and this very one was one of them! I loved it. Also owned a Zeppelin and a Who one, and possibly one or two others that I may be forgetting.
