Still no KISS in the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame

[EmergencyIan]

Still no:

Chicago

Doobie Brothers

Three Dog Night

Jim Croce

America

Hall & Oates

- Ian

PS. And don't say it's because they're not "Rock" when Madonna and Raps groups are getting in.

[generic]

Ok, I didn't see this thread until tonight and my reply is so long that I suspect no one will read it! However, I feel obligated to respond, so read or ignore as you see fit.

When you think of Madonna and Springsteen and the Beatles, etc, what comes to your mind, their image or their actual music? In these cases (inc the Beastie boys) it is the music

Madonna: First I think of her image in the 80s (particularly her look in the Material Girl video). Then I think about what a ***** she is. Then I think about her in that movie "Who's that Girl" and remember that she was also in a couple of other movies. I don't really think about her music unless it's specifically mentioned.

Springsteen: First I think of what a hard working guy he is. Then I think of the album cover for "Born in the USA" - which, by the way, is the only one of his songs I can think of instantly (after thinking for a while, I also remember that Philadelphia song).

Beatles: Ok, yeah, music, image, groundbreaking band - the whole package. But no one else is The Beatles.

The Beastie Boys: Yeah, I actually think of "No Sleep Till Brooklyn" and "Fight for Your Right to Party" and (only because of the video) "Sabotage", but I still think KISS deserves to be in the HOF before The Beastie Boys.

However in the case of Kiss, the immediate thing 99% think of is NOT their music but the image or just Gene Simmons.

Yeah, but I don't see the problem here. Sure, the first thing I think of when I think of KISS is their image...their AWESOME image! And yeah, maybe a lot of people think of Gene Simmons, but how many people can name a single member of the Rolling Stones (past or present) besides Keith Richards and Mic Jagger? How many people can name the guys in The Police besides Sting? I don't know why Gene Simmons' fame would disallow KISS from being in the HOF. Can you name one person who's played with Madonna? Or written any of her songs? She's in there. How about the names of the guys in The Beastie Boys? I doubt the average person can even name one. Every band that you listed had a strong image that is probably a major reason that they were ever noticed in the first place. Image is a HUGE part of Rock n' Roll.

Now I will take it a step further-- most regular people who are not into Kiss though know the name cannot name a single song or album they did since their 70's stuff. I know Heaven's on fire but that is really it. Anything they have done after that 70's era has not had any real major impact on the mainstream at all

How many people who aren't fans of them can name a Beastie Boys song that wasn't on "Licensed to Ill"? How many people that aren't fans can name a Bruce Springsteen song besides "Born in the USA" and what impact has Bruce Springsteen EVER had on Rock n' Roll? (no disrespect to The Boss, I think he's awesome at what he does, but I don't think he inspired anywhere near as many kids to pick up the guitar as KISS did and what did he ever change in music?!)

They may not have had the same kind of impact on other rock bands in the 80s that they had in the 70s, but they were still writing songs that were on Billboard's Top 100.

Likewise they have not expanded much musically at all in any direction and have pretty much played the same similar stuff over and over again. These things will keep them out forever.

Umm..."I was Made For Lovin' You" and "God of Thunder" are pretty much the same?

but c'mon folks, let's be honest here; I've heard high school bands that were more musically talented than KISS. from strictly a musical standpoint, you can't compare them to a band like RUSH. That's not even apples and oranges, it's like apples and refrigerators...

You also can't compare Madonna, The Beastie Boys or Bruce Springsteen to Rush. Rush is in a class of their own in my book (and also not in the HOF). However, I think most people who say KISS had no talent have never tried to play the bass line to "Detroit Rock City" or even "I Was Made For Lovin' You." No, KISS' songs don't compare to Rush in terms of musical complexity, but neither do any songs I know by Bruce Springsteen. At least KISS plays instruments on stage unlike Madonna or The Beastie Boys. Have you heard the Beastie Boys play instruments? They used to play. They weren't Rush either. I'm not really sure how either Madonna or the Beastie Boys have more talent than KISS.

I agree with that, BUT they have not revamped anything MUSICALLY, that is why they are not in. If it was soley based on marketing they would have been the first ones in and or possibly the most successful band I know of in that area, but the music they play is the opposite of this.

Well, they pretty much invented the entire genre of Hair Metal. What genre did Bruce Springsteen invent? Although it's often overlooked, there is not another album that has the sound that became thought of as 80s Metal before "Creatures of the Night."

In fact I will dare go as far to say if it was not for the makeup they would have remained an underground obscurity

I do not hate Kiss, but I am realistic in my rating of them as "so so" musicians regardless of how many people hate me for that statement

I don't hate you for making your statements, but I don't think that some of your statements are all correct and I don't think your arguments for why it's reasonable that KISS isn't in the HOF are logical. If KISS are "so so" musicians, then many of the people who HAVE been inducted into the hall of fame are less than "so so" musicians strictly in terms of their ability to play any instrument (many inductees can not play any instruments at all).

Everyone here is entitled to his or her opinion and my only intention is to present my argument just as you have presented yours.

...I remember when they tried to go it without the make-up and nobody bought it.

Before the release of their latest album, KISS had sold 103 MILLION albums worldwide and not all of those albums were sold in the 1970s. KISS had their fair share of hit songs after the makeup came off:

1983 - "Lick it Up" #66
1984 - "Heaven's on Fire" #49
1985 - "Tears are Falling" #51
1987 - "Crazy Nights" #65
1988 - "Reason to Live" #64
1989 - "Hide Your Heart" #66
1989 - "Let's Put the 'X' in Sex" #97
1990 - "Rise to it" #81
1990 - "Forever" #8

[jimsmegos]

Final point from me... none of the others in the HOF have a Mego doll in their likeness (maybe Cher? but none of the others). KISS is what rock n roll is all about... period

[Evel KMego]

KISS ruled rock music in the mid 70's. From about 75-78 no one was bigger. I loved KISS. I admit they were/are so-so musicians, but they RAISED the bar on live performances. A KISS concert was an event - Smoke,fire,blood, rising drum sets. They entertained. Rock is about a lot more than musicianship(It's not exactly Classical music). No way KISS doesn't deserve a spot.

[Mr Mego]

OMG!!! I'm a huge KISS fan..... hope will not happen to KISS fans!

[Brazoo]

Before the release of their latest album, KISS had sold 103 MILLION albums worldwide

Well - if you're basing things on LP sales Neil Diamond and KISS are about par - and that doesn't account for the huge hits Diamond wrote for others - that's just from his recording career.

Not that I want to really want to make this KISS vs. Diamond. I like both - personally I think both are probably on par in terms of musical influence, but there's no real way to quantify that - everyone will have their own perspective depending on taste, I think.

Ultimately it really doesn't matter - KISS will make it in the Hall for sure, eventually.

[Brazoo]

On the pro-KISS side I do think their influence is HUGE. Sure, their songs are simple and straight forward - if anything their accessibility is one of their biggest strengths. I think there are a lot of musicians who first picked up an instrument to play their songs - the world over - and for a few generations now.

[mego73]

I love KISS and they should get in the Hall Of Fame but it will probably never happen because the HOF are too pretentious.

[jimsmegos]

Okay one more thing... more of a thought... considering how brilliant Gene Simmons has been in the marketing of the band all these years... could it not be possible that this is an "inside job" by Gene and Paul to allow themselves to be "disrespected/ robbed/ shunned" specifically for the head lines and chat circles such as this one. as the old saying goes, "Talk good about me. Talk bad about me. Just talk about me."

[Goblin19]

I think they'll get in eventually.

[Goblin19]

Alice Cooper should have already been in, too.

[jimsmegos]

Perhaps, but Kiss is STILL only and average band. I mean, the Beatles sold 1.3 BILLION albums world wide as of 2004, and they stopped recording together in 1969. THAT, is Hall Of Fame material. To me, Kiss is just 4 Alice Cooper's.

But with that logic how can you justify Madonna or the Beastie Boys? Sales wise I'd say they are on the same playing field but not by staying power or volume. And I just can't see too many folks feeling all nostalgic for "Like a Virgin" or "papa don't preach". Now the Beastie's "Licensed to Ill" album maybe so but that's the ONLY album I can name from the trio.

And on a final note (and again just my opinion) "rock and roll" came to an end right around 1959. Everything after that is still rock but just no where near what "Rock N Roll" was at it's core. The energy and drive of the 50's era was lost somewhere between "Surf City" and "Please, please me."

[Brazoo]

I'm not a Madonna fan, but:

From Wikipedia: "Madonna has sold more than 300 million records worldwide and is recognized as the world's top-selling female recording artist of all time"

She's also had several # 1 hits in three decades. Again, I don't really care about her musically, but her success is pretty remarkable. Her record sales are basically 3 times KISS' sales.

As for the Beastie Boys, I'm a little surprised you guys don't know the album "Paul's Boutique" (their second album). It wasn't a big seller when it came out, but it's often sited as one the the most influential albums in Hip-Hop and is frequently on 'Best Albums of All Time' lists. They were also a HUGE band in the 90s.

[MIB41]

Perhaps, but Kiss is STILL only an average band. I mean, the Beatles sold 1.3 BILLION albums world wide as of 2004, and they stopped recording together in 1969. THAT, is Hall Of Fame material. To me, Kiss is just 4 Alice Cooper's.

Does that mean the '64 Beatles are four Elvis'? I don't think so. Everyone is influenced by those that came before. When you look at Cooper and see KISS, those are two separate approaches brought on two different scales. They may be theatrical but so are most bands in rock music. Plus KISS hid their faces for 10 years. That was a unique wrinkle that no one had ever pulled off. They are (and still remain) a unique band. If they were nothing more than a cheap rip off of Alice Cooper they would not have had any longevity. Even Alice himself acknowledges their achievement and says they did a better job at the overall concept.

[jds1911a1]

I almost accept LL cool J he has been producing music for decades and was a mover in getting rap mainstream airtime

I will even admit to once owning Licence to Ill on cassette but there is NO WAY that the Beastie boys deserve to be in over KISS.