Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Paul Stanley says KISS doesn't need to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because their fans already know they're the "best band in the universe"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Paul Stanley, rocks, Jann Wenner, Laura Nyro, Randy Newman, selection process, snubs, Mike McCready  
•       •       •

1220 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 May 2013 at 1:48 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-18 11:42:23 PM  

downstairs: Meh, I only know like 4 KISS songs... but who cares, they're fun.  Saw them live once, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a fairly cool experience.


A Kiss show is something that has to be seen in order to understand just how over the top it is. Gimmicky? Yes. Lots of marketing? Yes. But you go into it knowing that from the start, they don't lie about it, and they sold out stadiums around the world even after 40 years. R&RHOF is where they should be at some point. It's a Hall of Fame, not a critique of their music. By any measure they are a) a rock and roll band, b) are world famous and c) have a longevity that many other bands will never have. A flash in the pan they are not.
 
2013-05-19 12:35:47 AM  

Wasn't Looking at his Neck: FirstNationalBastard: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

To  be fair, Kiss isn't even as good as The Monkees.

/have you heard Mike Nesmith's stuff?

Seriously, they should've been in before the Sex Pistols at least a year, despite the latter being more rocking.


I don't see how you could compare the....

Monkeys

To the...

Sex Pistols. :D
 
2013-05-19 01:00:02 AM  

John Buck 41: TheJoe03: John Buck 41: Why would a rap group want to be in? Any more than a rock band would want to be in a Rap HOF?  Serious question.

Is there a hip-hop hall of fame? Anyways, when they let Madonna in you should have realized it wasn't a HOF strictly for rock but the post-rock modern era of popular music. It's also funny to me to see the purists get so bent out of shape about it.

I'm not bent out of shape because as I said upthread, it's the most irrelevant HoF there is. if they just changed the name to Pop Music HoF they might gain back some credibility.


Pop has an awful connotation. All the artists in the hall are mainstream, but I wouldn't consider all of them pop. Music HOF might be the best new name option.

/honestly a rock n roll band hasn't been added in a long time. That's technically just the early rock style, as opposed to rock.
 
2013-05-19 01:03:40 AM  

Duck_of_Doom: They qualify for the Hall of Fame because they are famous, they put on a fun act (never saw them, but that's the consensus) and play rock music.

Being the best band?  Hardly.  Catchy tunes and sploshuns are their trade.  Without the sploshuns and showmanship, can the music stand on its own?  Are their mid-level songs (not their worst nor their best) distinctive of their sound and form, and stand apart from others in the same genre?  Or are they a one-trick pony, serving the same song with slightly different notes or words?

They're McDonalds - fine if it's all you can find, or it's your mood, but shows a distinct lack of breadth or substance if it's all you have.


I think the Ramones are already in
 
2013-05-19 01:19:01 AM  

Mugato: Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.


Because rap has in no way influenced rock music, amirite?
 
2013-05-19 02:24:03 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: FirstNationalBastard: Oh, look, a music hipster thread where everyone can masturbate about how Neil Peart's wanky, pointless drum solos are the best thing evar and find out which bands they should no longer be listening to because a second person has heard of that band.

Everyone point and laugh.

/Kiss should be in the rock and roll hall of fame. If they let Rush in, anyone can make it in.

Of all the ridiculous members of the RRHOF (Madonna, for example) and you chose Rush to make your point?

I shudder to think what you must listen to.


This.

And Kiss sucks..
 
2013-05-19 02:40:36 AM  
KISS is good, but I just don't know if they are Blondie or Public Enemy level rock and roll.
 
2013-05-19 02:55:42 AM  

jj86: RRHOF is a joke. Justin Bieber will be inducted before Chicago, Journey, Styx or Kiss get in. Public Enemy? Really? Who's next? Eminem? They're a joke.


Hmmm, where's the "not this shiat again" meme when you need it (regarding Rap being part of the hall)?

Say what you will about the RRHOF and their ODD choices (I will NEVER understand why ABBA is in there) for the hall/those who should already be there, but to NOT include rap would not do the hall justice. Same as if you left Blues out of the Hall. Rock n roll has been influenced by and has influenced MANY different music genres. and like it or not, RAP/Hip Hop has a role in the hall. So far, they are doing pretty decent with the choices as far as Rap/Hip-Hop goes.

in other words, STFU about rap not belonging in the hall. The argument is getting old.
 
2013-05-19 05:21:54 AM  

mafiageek1980: jj86: RRHOF is a joke. Justin Bieber will be inducted before Chicago, Journey, Styx or Kiss get in. Public Enemy? Really? Who's next? Eminem? They're a joke.

Hmmm, where's the "not this shiat again" meme when you need it (regarding Rap being part of the hall)?

Say what you will about the RRHOF and their ODD choices (I will NEVER understand why ABBA is in there) for the hall/those who should already be there, but to NOT include rap would not do the hall justice. Same as if you left Blues out of the Hall. Rock n roll has been influenced by and has influenced MANY different music genres. and like it or not, RAP/Hip Hop has a role in the hall. So far, they are doing pretty decent with the choices as far as Rap/Hip-Hop goes.

in other words, STFU about rap not belonging in the hall. The argument is getting old.


I'd rather select rap getting in there far more than pop. F*ck Madonna and Abba.
 
2013-05-19 05:39:00 AM  

Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.


That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.
 
2013-05-19 05:49:33 AM  

silvervial: It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.


♫Imagine all The Beatles as black-leather bad-boy real selves♫
 
2013-05-19 07:40:40 AM  
"Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot."

Where's the Hero tag?

/kiss sucks.
 
2013-05-19 08:26:19 AM  
Saw them live in concert. Freaking terrible musicians/singers.
 
2013-05-19 09:12:42 AM  

Wasteland: downstairs: AIC isn't yet.  First album was 1990, the rule is 25 years from their frist release.  So that would be 2015.  As it stands in 2013, your first album needed to be released in 1988 or earlier.  Also Nirvana's first album was 1989... so they'll be the first grunge act to go in.


Soundgarden would be eligible a year sooner than Nirvana; Ultramega OK was released in '88.


And Soundgarden is by far the best of the Seattle bands.
 
2013-05-19 09:27:52 AM  

silvervial: Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.


Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.
 
2013-05-19 09:44:50 AM  
 
2013-05-19 09:47:39 AM  

JK8Fan: silvervial: Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.

Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.


The "Mods" and the "Rockers" were coming into vogue, as fashion/lifestyle trends in the early "counterculture."  It always seemed to me that the Beatles went into one mode, and the Stones the other.
 
2013-05-19 10:38:18 AM  
"It's absurd for anybody to look around and hear the acts and artists who cite us as an inspiration, and then tell me that we're not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame,"

The same goes for Mitch Ryder.
 
2013-05-19 10:56:49 AM  
Kiss is a very very very awful band,
 
2013-05-19 02:40:26 PM  
KISS can play circles around Nirvana, look much better while doing so, and the songs are a lot more fun.
 
2013-05-19 03:49:01 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: KISS can play circles around Nirvana, look much better while doing so, and the songs are a lot more fun.


Who gives a shiat? Kiss sucks and Nirvana will always be more respected.
 
2013-05-19 04:10:32 PM  
The people trying to say that KISS were bad musicians, but Nirvana should be in the Hall give a shiat.  KISS inspired millions more kids to play air guitar in front of their mirrors and eventually become musicians than Cobain did.

KISS were better musicians, better entertainers, and had a huge impact on multiple generations.
 
2013-05-19 04:14:07 PM  
Nirvana has way more impact than Kiss ever had, unless you think their influence on ICP and other gimmicky garbage is bigger than Nirvana's impact on alternative rock. Nirvana was a better BAND with better SONGS and obviously more influence. It's kind of funny to see someone actually think anyone today gives half a shiat about Kiss, they're a joke band. I'm 23 and there's WAAAAY more Nirvana fans than Kiss fans. Not even a contest, it's not the 80s anymore.
 
2013-05-19 05:07:17 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: KISS can play circles around Nirvana, look much better while doing so, and the songs are a lot more fun.


Once again, a perfect Fark handle/comment combo.
 
2013-05-19 05:08:26 PM  

TheJoe03: obviously more influence


1. Hair metal sales are winding dawn
2. ???
2. Influence!
 
2013-05-19 05:36:21 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Pincy: Milo Minderbinder: CSB:

Sometime in the '70s, the neighbor kids decided to dress up as Kiss for Halloween. Being conscientious fans, they did a trial run in September in full get-up, and went door-to-door, polling the neighborhood on whether they "looked enough like Kiss."

My immigrant father, with zero knowledge of American culture, and even less patience for fools, answered the door with his shotgun and threatened to blow their heads off if they ever showed up on his property looking like idiots again.

That's not a cool story bro.  That's someone who needed to be thrown in jail bro.

His theory was that if you act stupidly, don't be surprised when stupid things happen to you.

/I would have used the garden hose, but hey, too each his own


Sounds like a brave guy. Every child should have a gun pulled on them for wearing costumes. I hope he's done time in jail.
 
2013-05-19 06:04:33 PM  

LewDux: 1. Hair metal sales are winding dawn
2. ???
2. Influence!


You're saying Nirvana hasn't been influential on modern rock? I see a whole lot more bands that were influenced by Nirvana than Kiss. I guess there was that midget Kiss band and ICP, great influence Kiss had. I'd say Alice Cooper was the bigger influence if you want to act like metal still matters.
 
2013-05-19 06:17:28 PM  
I don't know how this thread morphed into a Nirvana suckfest but they suck as much as KISS, just in different ways.
 
2013-05-19 06:18:48 PM  

John Buck 41: I don't know how this thread morphed into a Nirvana suckfest but they suck as much as KISS, just in different ways.


That's why I don't get into the quality in this discussion, just the relevance and influence. Stryper brought em up though.
 
2013-05-19 06:33:13 PM  

TheJoe03: LewDux: 1. Hair metal sales are winding dawn
2. ???
2. Influence!

You're saying Nirvana hasn't been influential on modern rock? I see a whole lot more bands that were influenced by Nirvana than Kiss. I guess there was that midget Kiss band and ICP, great influence Kiss had. I'd say Alice Cooper was the bigger influence if you want to act like metal still matters.


Yeah, lots of emo (sorry mr.T) bands around. I meant that Nirvana is influential because label Stayed Away (ba dum tssshhhh)
 
2013-05-19 06:34:39 PM  

LewDux: Yeah, lots of emo (sorry mr.T) bands around.


It's still 2005? Is there a lot of nu metal bands too?
 
2013-05-19 06:45:17 PM  

TheJoe03: Nirvana has way more impact than Kiss ever had, unless you think their influence on ICP and other gimmicky garbage is bigger than Nirvana's impact on alternative rock. Nirvana was a better BAND with better SONGS and obviously more influence. It's kind of funny to see someone actually think anyone today gives half a shiat about Kiss, they're a joke band. I'm 23 and there's WAAAAY more Nirvana fans than Kiss fans. Not even a contest, it's not the 80s anymore.


KISS kind of changed how huge RnR shows were done.   They did it bigger louder, etc. than anyone before.
 
2013-05-19 06:47:22 PM  

mjbok: KISS kind of changed how huge RnR shows were done.   They did it bigger louder, etc. than anyone before.


Understood, I don't claim they are completely irrelevant but if you want to compare them to a band that is MUSICALLY relevant then you lose me.
 
2013-05-19 06:59:03 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: KISS were better musicians, better

circus entertainers, and had a huge impact on multiple generations. make-up sales.

Fixed.
 
2013-05-19 08:08:16 PM  
To this day, the only full Kiss album I can claim to like is Lick It Up

/Ace's solo album is good too
 
2013-05-19 10:23:00 PM  

SoupJohnB: JK8Fan: silvervial: Coco LaFemme: I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.

Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.

The "Mods" and the "Rockers" were coming into vogue, as fashion/lifestyle trends in the early "counterculture."  It always seemed to me that the Beatles went into one mode, and the Stones the other.


Actually, we have Ringo's own take on that:

Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: Um, no, I'm a mocker.
 
2013-05-19 10:43:21 PM  
Multiple generations of guitarists strummed their first tennis rackets because of KISS.  You can't credibly deny the influence that they had over millions of future guitarists.  And with Unplugged, they proved that underneath the spectacle lies good songs by competent musicians.
 
2013-05-19 10:51:01 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: Multiple generations of guitarists strummed their first tennis rackets because of KISS.  You can't credibly deny the influence that they had over millions of future guitarists.  And with Unplugged, they proved that underneath the spectacle lies good songs by competent musicians.


I've been playing drums in rock bands since my sophomore year of high school (1971). I have never heard any guitarist in all my years of hanging out with and being in rock bands EVER mention Kiss as an influence. Not once. The only person I've ever met in real life who actually liked Kiss was a bass player we auditioned about four years ago. He didn't pass the audition.
 
2013-05-19 10:55:36 PM  

JK8Fan: silvervial: Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.

Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.



To burn it all down to its essence:

The Beatles were hoodlums marketed as choirboys.
The Stones were choirboys marketed as hoodlums.

Quite successfully, too.
 
2013-05-19 11:17:13 PM  

Mole Man: Also when the heck is Cheap Trick gonna be inducted?

 
2013-05-19 11:45:53 PM  
Uhhhh.... 'puter issues.  What I MEANT to say was, I agree wholeheartedly with Stanley.  The RNRHoF is a sad friggin joke, considering Wenner's predilections and influence, and the terrible shiat that is already IN the hall vs. legends who are not.

Any real RnRHoF should consider influence, longevity, and musical skill\talent etc.   By such measures, bands such as Cheap Trick should have been in years ago.

As it is, I no longer care that they're not, and in many ways I hope they never get inducted.  In the words of Rick Nielsen himself, "The RNRHoF should BE so lucky to have us."

In most circumstances I would consider that an arrogant statement.  In this instance, not at all.
 
2013-05-19 11:59:09 PM  

dinwv: In the words of Rick Nielsen himself, "The RNRHoF should BE so lucky to have us."


If he actually said that, good for him.
 
2013-05-20 12:10:36 AM  

John Buck 41: dinwv: In the words of Rick Nielsen himself, "The RNRHoF should BE so lucky to have us."

If he actually said that, good for him.


He DID say it; in fact, I think on more than one occasion.  I'm looking to see if I can find a vid clip link of it.
 
Displayed 43 of 143 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report