KISS reveals new costumes for Sonic Boom

[MIB41]

And boy are they...different. The best way to explain these outfits is if you took the albums Hotter than H*ll, Destroyer, and Love Gun, then turned them into cars and had them run full speed into each other. It just looks like a mix and match from from old costumes...and ultimately a complete fashion wreck. And what is Gene doing in that second shot? He looks constipated...

KISSONLINE.com News

[huedell]

Looks more like he's doing a big chick from behind to me

As far as costumes go...new...or otherwise---I've never been too concerned.

This time is no different.

I, will, however say for posterity that ANYTHING "new" is an improvement.

[MIB41]

Ultimately it's the music and nothing else. I think KISS has come to understand that since ther reunion tour, they will not play around with their essential image anymore (even with new musicians in the fold). Afterall KISS is a visual product as well and I think that is why the band is playing it safe and just tweeking the outfits, rather doing something more radical.

[Riffster]

can't wait for the concert

[huedell]

Ultimately it's the music and nothing else.

Ultimately---okay---for me that's better than ultimately "no" change.

But, again, ultimately the only thing that sparks my interest is
new music. So, I guess it's "win/win" for me (in a way).

I think KISS has come to understand that since ther
reunion tour, they will not play around with their essential image anymore
(even with new musicians in the fold). Afterall KISS is a visual product as
well and I think that is why the band is playing it safe an just tweeking the
outfits, rather doing something more radical.

That seems to be the case.

And, honestly I don't know WHAT "plan" would make more sense to
pursue from a "business" standpoint.

I WILL say, however, that if there wasn't a new album coming out soon I'd
be HALF the KISS fan that I am at this present moment...for whatever
THAT'S worth.

[MIB41]

Well if you look back on the early stages of their career in 1980 when they were changing drummers, they felt inclined to change the character makeup as well because they were so married to the concept of what the makeup was "suppose" to mean (extentions of their personalities, etc.) Of course this was all marketing, but they bought into it completely and that started what became many different stages of change for the band image. By the time the original members got back together in 1996, I believe they realized there was only ONE image people bought into and that's how they've worked it ever since. Had they given new makeup designs to Tommy and Eric, this might have diluted their image once more and derailed their appeal once again. Of course in this day and age, and after all of these years, you would think something that radical would not take place. But I think it's reasonable to assume the band is steering clear from old marketing mistakes.

[huedell]

Well if you look back on the early stages of their career in 1980 when they were changing drummers, they felt inclined to change the character makeup as well because they were so married to the concept of what the makeup was "suppose" to mean (extentions of their personalities, etc.) Of course this was all marketing, but they bought into it completely and that started what became many different stages of change for the band image. By the time the original members got back together in 1996, I believe they realized there was only ONE image people bought into and that's how they've worked it ever since. Had they given new makeup designs to Tommy and Eric, this might have diluted their image once more and derailed their appeal once again. Of course in this day and age, and after all of these years, you would think something that radical would not take place. But I think it's reasonable to assume the band is steering clear from old marketing mistakes.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I guess you could say it's a lock that new characters would only confuse
the public more than it would help gain new fans...especially at this point
WAY into band's "future".

Then again, to surmise that they have "learned from their past mistakes"
seems possibly presumptious, as my belief is that NOTHING (spaceman
OR catman) would have saved KISS from falling into obscurity in the later
"original" makeup years except taking taking off the makeup.

[MIB41]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I guess you could say it's a lock that new characters would only confuse
the public more than it would help gain new fans...especially at this point
WAY into band's "future".

Then again, to surmise that they have "learned from their past mistakes"
seems possibly presumptious, as my belief is that NOTHING (spaceman
OR catman) would have saved KISS from falling into obscurity in the later
"original" makeup years except taking taking off the makeup.

Well your also working from a presumption of how events would have unfolded had the makeup stayed the same. Keep in mind that by the time Kiss took the makeup off, the public had been subjected to a number of radical changes in the band, both in image (Eric and Vinnie) and with albums (Unmasked & the Elder). When they returned to their "roots" musically with Creatures they had alienated the majority of their audience, so taking the makeup off was a no brainer at that point. All other options were off the table and they needed to follow the new industry standard which they may have influenced had they tried to right their ship sooner and avoid some of the marketing mistakes they made. As it was, they were still an obvious influence on so many bands. But if you recall those bands, like Motley Crue, were on the "Kiss sucks" bandwagon at that point and not willing to acknowledge the obvious.

[huedell]

Well your also working from a presumption of how events would have unfolded had the makeup stayed the same. Keep in mind that by the time Kiss took the makeup off, the public had been subjected to a number of radical changes in the band, both in image (Eric and Vinnie) and with albums (Unmasked & the Elder).

True. But isn't that the point? i.e. Changing the makeup/characters wasn't
the only factor here for why KISS' selling power dissapated.

When they returned to their "roots" musically with Creatures they had alienated the majority of their audience, so taking the makeup off was a no brainer at that point. All other options were off the table and they needed to follow the new industry standard which they may have influenced had they tried to right their ship sooner and avoid some of the marketing mistakes they made.

I'm guessing that the makeup would have gotten old regardless.

As it was, they were still an obvious influence on so many bands. But if you recall those bands, like Motley Crue, were on the "Kiss sucks" bandwagon at that point and not willing to acknowledge the obvious.

I'll have to take your word for that, but even so, the fact that Motley was saying "KISS SUCKS" being directly related to changing character designs in
KISS seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[MIB41]

Well what I'm saying is that KISS, from a marketing perspective, have stayed consistant for the past 13 years. Think about it. They've been in makeup longer the second go around then what they managed in the beginning (which was only 10 years). So the point is, they have not deviated off the standard image since that time. Look at KISS in the first ten years - Did you imagine the dark and blood spitting Demon off Alive becoming a bubblegum superhero in three short years? Or better yet, if you could forsee that, could you THEN imagine him singing ballads with a tear running down his eye three years after that change? People tend to forget Kiss made radical changes both in image and music in a very short period of time. And they were labeled dinosaurs by the time metal music was catching it's stride in the early 80's. Well of course. Kiss could not be more opposite of what they were, both in image and music, just five years earlier. So it wasn't that the market abandoned them and they were destined to fail. Quite the contrary. Kiss should have been poised to have a huge decade in the 80's with the emphasis on video and IMAGE had they stayed on task. They have avoided all of that the second go around, even with changes with band members. The results speak for themselves.

[huedell]

Well what I'm saying is that KISS, from a marketing perspective, have stayed consistant for the past 13 years. Think about it. They've been in makeup longer the second go around then what they managed in the beginning (which was only 10 years). So the point is, they have not deviated off the standard image since that time. Look at KISS in the first ten years - Did you imagine the dark and blood spitting Demon off Alive becoming a bubblegum superhero in three short years? Or better yet, if you could forsee that, could you THEN imagine him singing ballads with a tear running down his eye three years after that change? People tend to forget Kiss made radical changes both in image and music in a very short period of time. And they were labeled dinosaurs by the time metal music was catching it's stride in the early 80's. Well of course. Kiss could not be more opposite of what they were, both in image and music, just five years earlier. So it wasn't that the market abandoned them and they were destined to fail. Quite the contrary. Kiss should have been poised to have a huge decade in the 80's with the emphasis on video and IMAGE had they stayed on task. They have avoided all of that the second go around, even with changes with band members. The results speak for themselves.

Personally, I'm not buying into your theory.

The "results" as you call them are bourne from nostalgia for a classic band's
most memorable years which just happen to be a certain era that KISS is
trying to pinpoint...with varied success, but enough to validate what they
are doing.

And just because these were the most popular years doesn't mean that they STILL wouldn't've been "dinosaurs" by 1982 anyways IMO...taking off the
makeup was inevitable in a search to keep their heads above water.

All those years WITHOUT makeup also HELPED contribute to the "success"
of putting the makeup back on. (How can u have nostalgia for something that
hasn't disappeared?)

Regardless of all that makeup/no make up/character change/no character
change malarkey---the 80s were still pretty kind to them.

Better than they were to many classic 70s bands.

[MIB41]

Regardless of all that makeup/no make up/character change/no character
change malarkey---the 80s were still pretty kind to them.

Well that's a perspective but don't ever ask them. From Billboards' point of view Kiss certainly enjoyed more hits in the 80's and I would tend to lean towards the idea that they held it together very well during that period ( I certainly liked them). But KISS personally had a pretty tough time steeming from lawsuits with Polygram to trying to get Peter Criss paid off as a full time member of the band. Yes he was still paid a quarter of the profits until 1988. The albums were mixed. Most went platinum but the tours were hot and cold throughout the 80's. The Lick it up tour was modest at best; Animalize saw them get bigger crowds; Asylum did pretty good. But with Crazy Nights the band gambled alot of money and time to wait on and bring in producer Ron Nevison and paid him big money in hopes of getting a multi-platinum record. That didn't materialize and the tour was cut short because it was a bust. All interesting facts which ironically contrast the three videos they had from that record and the success those enjoyed on MTV. Hot in the Shade saw them miss platinum sales but the tour was wildly succesful because they began playing songs from their 70's set again. So musically they held it together, but I think if they could edit their lives, the 80's are probably where they would start.

[huedell]

Hot in the Shade saw them miss platinum sales but the tour was wildly succesful because they began playing songs from their 70's set again.

Not to mention a massive hit off of the HOT IN THE SHADE album
with FOREVER...their second biggest charting single of their career.

So musically they held it together, but I think if they could edit their lives, the 80's are probably where they would start.

We all have "those places"---I could hypothesize a couple other "possibles"
for KISS themselves but I'm tired

[MIB41]

Hey we're just talking. It's always fun to swap perspectives with long term Kiss fans. I enjoy it Huedell. Thanks for your point of view.

[huedell]

Hey we're just talking. It's always fun to swap perspectives with long term Kiss fans. I enjoy it Huedell. Thanks for your point of view.

Right back at ya---and you KNOW I'll try and get my talk show friend
to weigh in here if I can sway the next "show" into these topics!