KISS Album Trilogy Discussion Thread

here is an interview with Richie Wise discussing Hotter Than Hell at the 38 Min mark and how embarrassed he was with the sound of Hotter than Hell

 

Yeah, he doesn't speak too fondly of it in the Kiss books either. They definitely didn't achieve what they were seeking (whatever that was...). Yet I'm sure he also couldn't have imagined how many would fall in love with that record all these years later! Even despite his own belief that it was poor...

 

I remember a long time ago thinking I was perhaps alone in finding a stylized charm to that "strange" Hotter Than Hell sound. I thought maybe I was just imagining that there was some kind of sonic "art" behind it. But then I read several reviews for the album on Amazon years ago where many reviewers were very adamant that there was an intent to that sound and were aghast that other customers were clamoring for a remix to "fix" the sonics. They were making the point that if you try and correct that horrendous sound, you take away what the album was trying to achieve. So I was pleasantly surprised to see others in fact find that sound to be very deliberate to the album's appeal (although "appeal" might not be the right word).

I'm not saying that those people know precisely what they are talking about any more than I do, but there is indeed a pocket of fans that believe the album was arranged to be its own little "work of art" sonically (let alone visually)

 

There's no doubt in my mind that HTH sounds awful and it's not intentional. It was a matter of two producers being way over their heads in terms of knowing what they were doing. They've admitted it.

Now, if you want to call HtH a futuristic vision and a example of an album ahead of its time, go ahead and think that. Fact is it was a botched production job and nothing more than that. It wasn't some stroke of brilliant artistic vision; it was an example of incompetence.

Frame it how you wish.

 

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I can agree that the producers didn't know what they were doing, but I'll never believe that there wasn't some sort of intent there. As mentioned (not just by me but several passionate fans of the album), you can hear something very distinct in the arrangement of that "awful sound". I sure can. I certainly have never claimed it was an intentional stroke of artistic brilliance. Kiss aren't the Beatles. But a distinct record as an offshoot of an attempted production that didn't work the way the producers or band intended? Absolutely.

Just my humble opinion of course.

 

Yes, the idea was to capture KISS's live sound on tape. Fact is, that failed miserably and the record sounds like a tap dance through the La Brea tar pits. Not a bad thing but certainly not what they were going for ...

 

for me it just works. If it wasn't done on purpose it should have been. The heavy, sludgy sound, the garish Kabuki front cover and the rear cover?...wow heady stuff for a pre-teen in the 70s . It just worked I even like the fact Ace & Gene wore strange costumes never saw anywhere else......

 

Well it didn't fail miserably to me. Maybe to them it did. The main point, though, was that their was intent. Whether that intent was labeled as an ambition to create a live sound or something "galactic", what remains is a sound that was at least attempted deliberately. And, in my opinion it's a very distinct one. That's all I was trying to express. I'm not arguing that the producers achieved the sound they wanted. They have always said they didn't. I'm just saying some ambition in a sound was apparently sonically planned. Even an awful sounding album has to have a game plan.

 

Well said.

 

I can buy that.

I'm sure, to you, the world's most accepting and biggest KISS fan, that I'm a dour Dan. I assure you I like the band as much as any fan, but I have my parameters of what I deem to be good and don't. I do not look at the band's history with rose colored glasses. I see them for what they are: brilliant, creative, fore thinking, desperate, and trend following; they were all of the above.

 

I marginally prefer the 2nd trilogy, if only because greater record company investment meant they sound better. The second and third albums are seriously compromised by weak production, even though the songs are mostly great.

 

i agree although the bands 1st album is my favorite

 

No, it's okay if you are a dour Dan.

You are certainly free to not like anything Kiss has done. I can't control your interpretations of the band or their albums. How could I? And I can respect your opinions.

It's not that I'm the most "accepting" Kiss fan as much as I don't take the band seriously. And there is far more good about the band that can be celebrated as opposed to energy that would be used to look for bad. They are a pop act, nothing more. I tend to think people often impose criticism to things sometimes where nothing was even intended to be scrutinized. A good song that moves someone is a good song that moves someone whether it has Ezrin's production, Eddie Kramer's, Vini Poncia's or the failed production attempts of Richie Wise and Kenny Kerner.

I certainly can discern between stuff I like about the band relative to other stuff, but I'm not sure why I would go out of my way to be harshly critical about stuff I enjoy? If I have spaghetti one night, pizza the next, and fish and chips the next, no one would say, "you are very accepting of food"...

Either way, I highly doubt I'm the biggest and most accepting Kiss fan out there. I am passionate about them, but I always try to be very level-headed and just enjoy them for what they are - a legendary but unimportant pop band. In my eyes, criticism is best left to reviewers, arts that one finds noteworthy faults with, or figure skating routines.

Putting my rose-colored glasses back on...

 

3 - 1 - 2.

 

That's a unique and interesting preference, since many who like #3 (the more commercial and produced stuff) are usually at odds with your second preference (the more hungry early street-like rock). But I like your ranking! It reflects that there is no right or even common way to enjoy Kiss.

 

These days I listen to this period the most!

3) Pop/ Transitionary Period -(Dynasty, Unmasked, Music From The Elder)

I have always loved the pop masterpiece that Unmasked is. Cannot play it enough. I love all Kiss but I guess this period is the one I didn't burn out on in my youth so I reach for them the most now.

 

#1

 

Thanx. I like 3 over every other trilogy, by far. Even being the metalhead I am, I could not resist the appeal these releases had (and still have) on me.

1 I love because it's Kiss at their rockiest.

I do enjoy 2, but just not as much as 3 and 1

The other options aren't really options to me, for I stopped buying Kiss records after Lick It Up. I didn't think metal and Kiss went together. So I guess I'm full of contradictions. Wait.....cannot believe it; ¨Sure Knows Something¨ began playing on the radio as I type

Wrong. I threw away Gene's too

 

I liked Rock n Roll Over a lot at the time, because I saw it as the band getting back to the crunchy rock that they seemed to get away from on Destroyer. "Well...this is more like it!"....that's what went through my head. I didn't really care for the single, I mean does anyone not think they were doing a Rod Stewart impression with this?

Anyway....my vote goes to set number 1. The first album has so many of their all time classics. The second album joins a long list of really good albums that overcome their crappy sound. And the third, despite some pretty rough lyrics, still manages to rawk hard. Easy choice for me here.

 

Yeah, I seem to gravitate to that trilogy really deeply as well. I think it's the "peculiar" flavors of those three releases and maybe the fact that there is interest in stuff once deemed "a downfall". You end up kind of having a soft spot for it. It's somewhat the same reason I also gravitate to the "glam trilogy" as well.

 

You don't realize how right you are! Indeed, Paul wrote the song with Rod Stewart in mind. It was a very blatant attempt at Rod Stewart to be sure. Initially, he wrote it with the intent of giving it to him. Luckily, the other members convinced him to keep it for Kiss. And I doubt Rod was overly impressed anyway. Although I like to think he was at least flattered by the effort?

I've always said, thank goodness they did. Rod certainly didn't need any more hits anyway, yet it became a signature song for Kiss. It remains my second favorite Kiss song and the best ballad they ever wrote (in my humble opinion).

Myself, though, I love Rod Stewart. If I were Paul, and had the same writing talent, I'd have been copying Rod Stewart too. Heck, in my opinion, every rock n roller could do well in trying to steal from Rod...

 

I didn't know the history of it until years later. But at the time, it just seemed like blatant and baffling mimickry. It was still hugely successful/popular, but it was a real head scratcher to me at the time, as it felt completely out of place on the Eddie Kramer produced, no nonsense, back to their rock roots album.

 

I can respect that I suppose, if that's truly how it hit you. Myself, I always felt it was a definitive and surprisingly beautiful song for "Rock And Roll Over" and that it helped to add a poignant and effective contrast to the ultra-hot "Makin Love" which follows and sends the album off. A song I love almost as much for completely opposite reasons! For me, it might be one of the greatest "one-two punch closers" on any album.

 

Well, keep in mind I might be coming from a different view point. I started with the first album when it was fairly new, and bought the rest on release. To me, Destroyer had some cool stuff but a lot of it reeked of a sell-out. I thought Ezrin had ruined this band. So, I was relieved at the more rocky sound of RnR Over, but that one thing just stuck out. I guess they needed something to follow up Beth, although I just wanted them to go back to the way they were.

 

The Originals. Though Originals 2 isn't too shabby either!