This times a thousand. Ultimately Kiss wrote songs that resonated with far more people. Great songwriting (as determined by those buying the records) always sells itself. Regardless, I see no need why both artists can't be loved. I sure do. I don't hold anything against Angel just because they aren't Kiss. Angel is their own unique self.
It's interesting that STARZ have now become an integral part of this thread. I'd say they were the best of the three, YMMV. They certainly rocked a lot harder than KISS, not that that's the be-all & end-all for everyone, but it usually is for me
I have so many albums full of wonderful songwriting that have sold no more than a few thousand copies that I heartily disagree with this statement. Far too many other factors in play for song quality alone to sell an album.
I can see that. Definitely one of those voices that you get or you don't. See also Roger Chapman, David Surkamp, Bjork et al.
I don't remember it at all but Greg Giuffria's self titled band had a song that got some play on my local station.
I would not go that far but Starz was a hell of a good band live. I saw them up many times as opening bands for Rush, UFO, and Bob Seger. The band management’s used the same strategy as they used with Kiss which was to have them on the road all of the time in theaters and arenas and the band never really broke despite having some great songs. Cherry Baby should have been a huge hit. Michael Lee Smith was a good looking and charismatic front man and Richie Ranno a great guitar player. Ranno still still performs 3-4 times a week in New Jersey. I also have seen them live with their reunion gigs during the last ten years. Ranno is the last remaining member and is touring with Angel in October in the Northeast.
This is the correct answer for most threads of the form: "Why wasn't [some band] as successful as [another band that made it big]?" (Other potential answers, "They didn't get promoted as much," or "Their songs didn't get played on the radio as much," or "They didn't tour enough," or "They got trashed by [famous reviewer]"...)
Actually, after I wrote this yesterday and listened to White Hot for the first time in a couple years while at the gym, I thought that it might be more accurate to say "Their music is more like if a Led Zeppelin tribute band decided they wanted to play music like Journey and/or Styx instead." Which probably isn't the best way to describe them to try to "sell them" to folks, but it's misleading to listen to them expecting them to sound kind of like KISS.
The ONLY time I ever heard Angel on the radio was an ad for whatever album their Rascals cover was on. That lasted for about a week. The late 70's were littered with Aucoin managed bands who never went past a certain level, Angel, Starz, Piper, Toby Beau, New England. My theory is he didn't spread enough payola.
I don't agree with that, because whether someone is good or not is completely subjective, and I think that those subjective opinions are strongly influenced by exposure, promotion, social acceptance, etc. (where the latter two also affect exposure, obviously). I wouldn't say that we can make just any arbitrary thing a huge success, but as long as it's not too far outside of currently popular norms for whatever niche, I think we can make anything a success with enough promotional support. Angel were definitely well within norms for their style(s) of music.
You're probably right. I've got Toby Beau's debut record. It's a really nice country-rock listen. Never managed to find the other two.
Funny to see Starz get so much mention in this thread. Like Angel, they were a band I was sort of aware of as a budding preadolescent rock geek because I thought they had a cool logo, but didn’t actually hear until years later.
Don't ever remember hearing Angel on the radio back in the day. The only time I recall hearing their music was when they were featured as a concert attraction in the 1980 movie Foxes
I don't know if I ever heard them on the radio either. Same with Starz. But as a KISS fanatic from the start, as well as a Parliament (and Funkadelic) fanatic starting with Chocolate City in 1975, I picked up Angel's Helluva Band as soon as I noticed the advertisement for it, since they were also on Casablanca Records: At the time, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I wondered "What is a 'heh-Loo-va' band??" It took me an embarrassingly long time--many years afterward--to realize it was "hell of a band." The same was the case for Starz--I noticed in an advertisement that they were under Aucoin/Rock Steady management (KISS' management), so I was eager to check them out: As with the other two bands I mentioned early on, New England and Nantucket, I knew that Paul Stanley was producing the first New England album, plus I also saw them open up for KISS at that time, and I saw Nantucket open up for both KISS and AC/DC.
I saw them o-Em for The Kinks in the late 70’s. They were great onstage but I don’t think their image helped them post-glam.
A little different perspective from a then 14 year old hard rock fan. For me, I was a guitar rock fan and Angel was too heavily keyboard-influenced. That's why they never caught on with me. In later years, I came to appreciate the occasional keyboard, but in 1975-76 it was all about the guitars, and the guitar work in Angel just didn't measure up. I still have my original copy of Helluva Band, but as soon as I heard the Rascals cover on White Hot, they were shown the door.
I was a big hard rock fan, too, but not only, and by the time I discovered Angel, I was basically a one-man ELP--I had been playing drums about 8 years, piano/keyboards for about 6 years, and I had just started teaching myself bass, so I was rather attracted to music with a lot of keyboards.