KISS Album Trilogy Discussion Thread

1) The Originals- (KISS, Hotter Than Hell, Dressed To Kill)

 

You know, I read a lot of fans talk about how much they like Rock n Roll Over and how they consider the best album the band ever did. I'm just kind of like . I mean, I get it, it had "Hard Luck Woman" which was a big hit and some other good material on it, but for me, it was kind of a lost album. It was the last album I bought as a young fan (when the stuff that was available was from the s/t to Love Gun) and something about this album I never warmed to. I think, honestly, I got to know the songs from it from Alive II instead of the album itself. I guess what I'm saying is I've always just kind of overlooked it.

 

Yeah, "Rock And Roll Over" is interesting I think because it catches the band "on the brink of the peak". On one hand, the production is less orchestrated than from the previous "Destroyer", so it might give some fans the sense that it is a less "engaging" album (which it probably is).

On the other hand, though, I think the songs themselves further progress Kiss's "sass and groove" mentality, culminating in such gems as the album's first three tracks and the album's last three tracks (among others that are just simply "good").

I've often said that an album side of I Want You, Take Me, Calling Dr. Love, Hard Luck Woman and Makin Love would have went down as the greatest album side in the whole discography! So the gems are certainly there. In reality, though, they are spread out, and the album as a whole may not flow as well, or be everyone's cup of tea.

Personally, I think "Love Gun" was their peak as a unit and as a production. Not just because it was indeed their peak in popularity, but because the songs have a seamless kind of sheen while still feeling stripped-down and with a "power-pop" kind of energy. Side one, in particular, is probably my favorite album side in the Kiss catalog.

So I wouldn't say "Rock And Roll Over" is my #1 Kiss album either. I kind of view the three albums after "Alive!" as a three-step buildup to the mountain top, so to speak. "Destroyer" (and "Beth" to be precise) was like the first step in acquiring a wide and commercial fan base. I think "Rock And Roll Over" built on that first step, at least in terms of the band returning to a more true sound while still expanding on their "larger than life" personas and commercial appeal.

Finally, it all came together on "Love Gun". One can argue which songs are better between the three albums, but I think in terms of focus and finding their groove, Kiss hit the mark with "Love Gun" and truly became America's most popular band for the next couple years. I think "Love Gun" is how Kiss truly envisioned their studio sound from the beginning, from a stylistic, commercial and persona standpoint - brisk, rockin but with a slight commercial polish.

All the other albums before and after those three are just...well...great...though made amidst some turmoil and the inevitable changing of trends.

 

I'd definitely take Rock and Roll Over over Destroyer or Love Gun. In fact the only studio album I think I'd put before it is Dressed to Kill.

I just find it to be one of the most listenable albums. Tight, punchy, great guitar sound, very live sounding.

I could easily live with just DTK, Alive!, and RR&O. Those are really the only ones I ever listen to anyway. So that's my trilogy.

But sticking strictly to the ones in the OP, I have to go with the first. Because I need to have DTK.

 

I can halfway relate...

In the "spirit of 76" poll I started, I said that if forced to pick I'd take "Rock And Roll Over" over "Destroyer" (only because I feel the former is more a "from the hip" kind of Kiss album and catches them on the verge of the crown, whereas the latter was in many ways an Ezrin album as much as a "Kiss album". Both are essential though.

Yet I'd take "Love Gun" over "Rock And Roll Over". It just flows and grooves more effortlessly to my ears.

All this stuff is difficult though! As I said in my first post, you can't really go wrong either way. It's best to just flip a coin...

 

More Kiss talk! I love it!

I flip flop on what's better Rock And Roll Over or Love Gun . The first 3 I do as as well. They are all excellent in their own way and depends on your mood. Destroyer is still the best out of the 70's era though and no album tops that for me except for maybe Creatures of The Night.

 

Yeah, Kiss albums are literally like being lost in a candy store...you might want a pure chocolate bar, you might want one with caramel, or you might feel like peanut M&M's. It's all sugar but the variety is still there if one favors something specific.

 

Personally, I like all the trilogies (or Phases) in the KISS catalogue. Not too many bands can claim such a diverse catalogue of music and still be true to themselves as a band. It's a pretty remarkable accomplishment.

 

Well said!

I often ramble on about how there is really no such thing as "bad" Kiss. You may just gravitate to some pockets more than others. At least that's certainly the case with me.

As you said, despite going through several member changes and going through the high of highs and the low of lows, and then back again, all of the material seems to have taken a place within the colorful fabric of the band. People may not like all of it, and fans have a tendency to look back and ask "what if" about the members staying together, etc, but looking back it all has its place. It's hard for any band to make just one good album in a lifetime. Kiss truly has a smorgasbord to suit one's tastes. Assuming one likes the "taste" of the band to begin with...

 

1, with Alive! thrown in.

I was done by Destroyer, Rock and Roll Over got me mildly re-interested for a short time. But not long.

My deal is, I bought Hotter than Hell when it was THE NEW ALBUM.

Back then, Kiss wasnt hot or really even famous, they were this sort of oddball rock band that were gathering a following, but only in certain areas of the States.
It was actually difficult to find their albums in a lot of places.

Anyway, back then, they were weird. The comic books and lunchboxes and tv shows hadnt come along to hollywhorewood it all up and more or less ruin that sort of mystery they had at first. So no later era can hold a candle to all that, as far as I'm concerned.

My first live concert was Kiss, in about 1976, either the Alive tour or the one just after, playing the exact same show. That was awesome, a spectacle no band has ever come close to that I've seen.

 

Love Gun was my first rock album ever at 11 years of age so it will always be a sentimental favorite but I don't think it's KISS's best album. I think the rot had set in with the band with that one. Undoubtedly some extremely strong tunes on it but some real garbage, too.

I was just listening to Destroyer a day or so ago and while that album is super charred (as opposed to be merely 'burnt out' for me) there's little doubt in my mind that it's their best record; production, songs, you name it. It's a classic. I love all of KISS's output from the debut to Dynasty but Destroyer is their pinnacle as far as I'm concerned.

 

Awesome post, brother. Very cool to hear from a truly old school fan. One of my greatest regrets is being too young to see KISS in their heyday of the 76/77 period. I used to fantasize about seeing those shows. Best I could do was catch them in 79 on the Dynasty tour .

 

without question the first 3 albums. I have always thought these first 3 had a certain street cred to them all the others lacked. The subject matter was darker and more rock than later.......early Kiss was edgy and slightly dangerous a lot of people forget that as Kiss got absorbed into Americana. Personally I love Hotter Than Hell it is very sludgy......kinda the Kiss version of Master of Reality.

 

I came in later, around 1978-1979, so the "real Kiss" will always be the "commercial Kiss" to me, so to speak. But I think it just speaks to how many different ways (and eras) the band touched upon. Some even cite that they didn't really get into Kiss until getting into the 80's albums. So it's amazing that the band can mean so much to so many from varying eras.

I do agree that Kiss, and really most bands, do have a sort of mysterious impression upon first hitting the record racks. It's true that there is a hunger and freshness there that can't ever be "re-gained". But that's just how it goes in rock and roll (and the price that you pay). You either shoot for the stars, if you will, or you don't.

 

4

 

Interesting analogy. I think it's right on. The difference is MoR was meant to sound like that whereas HtH turned out that way due to producer incompetence. In any event, good comparison.

 

i need to think about this a bit

 

thanks GodShifter, it was a fortunate accident if you ask me. I love the harsh compressed sound of that album and the songs fit that sound perfectly. It was almost like Kenny Kerner and Richie Wise accidentally stumbled upon grunge 15 years ahead of time.

 

1 & 2

 

No 3

 

Perhaps a different topic for a different thread, but couldn't we say that Sabbath hit upon grunge and stoner rock some 3 years before with MoR? I'd wager every single grunge band owed more to Sabbath than KISS*.

*I'm not taking anything away from KISS as I know they were an important band to many grunge acts but Sabbath was, arguably, more important.

 

I would agree with that statement.

 

Absolutely. I don't think they meant to, but that style is certainly there, in retrospect. I don't even like grunge yet I love "Hotter Than Hell".

I once joked that there's no way an album with that horrendous a sound was completely an accident...

I've always thought the sound was very intentional. I don't mean that they achieved the sound they wanted but I definitely feel there was an intent there (even if no one knew exactly what they were doing). Most everyone has stated they were at least trying for a more hands-on/unique type of approach to that record, despite it being made quickly in L.A.

Either way, it's one of the most impressionable albums in history, in my opinion.

 

It was widely said to be an accident and that the band was disappointed with the sound. However I also remember that they were trying to capture their live sound which the first album failed to do and they wanted the album to be heavy and Sabbath like. They certainly accomplished the latter but I think the sludgy sound was ultimately the result of Kerner and Wise being inexperienced.

***That album deserves it's own thread IMO. It was always my favorite and is unique in their lengthy catalog.

 

True. I guess it's hard to know just how much of the distinct sound was truly happy accident. I do agree that Kerner and Wise were still very green in trying to produce the thing, yet there is also a seemingly-intentional kind of style about the sonics. Not in the sense that the sonics are "appealing", but the sound almost has a layered kind of hollowness in which it seems someone was at least trying to achieve something. And things like Ace's dazzling improvised solo on "Strange Ways" seems to be captured very purposely, as to not lose that squeaky distinct kind of tone.

It's hard to explain, but it's distinct if listened to. It sounds sloppy yet somehow "balanced and arranged sloppily", if that makes any sense?