To his credit Trunk rails against quite a number of acts who have been snubbed like Judas Priest, Rush and a few others that I agree with. I also realize the Latin phrase "de gustibus non est disputandum" (in matters of taste there is no argument) comes in to play here, but if we stuck to those parameters there would be no art criticism at all. So with that: KISS and why they do not deserve to be included into the Hall of Fame. Being born in 1964, Trunk would have been 10 when the band's first album was released, but more importantly in his adolescence when the band really hit their heyday. This is important, as the music we love during this period stays with us irrespective of its value as we grow older. Much like most people look back on this time in their life with fondness (outwith those with traumatic experiences), the music is incorporated into this nostalgia. The nostalgia and clinging to these bands extend into the early twenties also. Can such bands be good and respected? Of course, and the time they are popular doesn't necessarily discredit that. But KISS stands out in this respect.
There are many people who list amongst their favourite bands those who came long before they were born or those who came along long after their adolescence. I know many people who's favs include The Beatles, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and many more who had formed and sometimes disbanded long before their birth. Likewise, I also know quite a few, myself included, who would include bands who came along long after that impressionable period had passed. However, I've never come across anyone who claim KISS as a favourite who doesn't fit into that impressionable demographic. You don't see teenagers claiming Destroyer is a classic, or even those well into their twenties. On the other end, I've yet to find Rock fans who were much older in the '70s who look with fondness on the banal recordings of the band. The reason is simple: KISS are nothing more than a novelty band. Did they sell a grip of albums? Sure, but is that going to be the criteria for Hall of Fame inclusion? If so, expect Nickleback to be first year inductees! No, KISS simply were over-the-top showmen whose music was a secondary thought. Big, flashy shows with blood, fire, ridiculous costumes and face paint? Again sure, but that wasn't even original as Alice Cooper had done it before and much better, and along the way produced stellar albums like Killer, Billion Dollar Babies and School's Out. Original make-up with supposed characteristics of the paint imbued on the members. Hmmm...
Paul Stanley aka Starchild
David Bowie in his Starman period.So, let's recap shall we: KISS is a band with fans limited to a specific period, a stage show that was nothing original, and even one of their trademark make-up designs seems eerily unoriginal. Let's add to that they have stayed together (and by that I mean Paul & Gene) and haven't put out any meaningful music in over 20 years. With lagging sales and tours, what does the band do to build a bigger fan base? Write and release some fantastic music? No, in 1996 they go back to their make-up gimmick and go on tour. Like I said, nothing but a novelty band.
p.s. Just to add something which I think backs up my position with Eddie Trunk and KISS. Watching a rerun of That Metal Show last week, Trunk along with co-hosts Don Jamieson and Jim Florentine, listed the top 5 Metal guitarists of all-time. Trunk had Ace Frehely at No. 1! Ha...seriously? Look up any poll on the same subject and Frehely isn't normally in the top 20 (or most cases 50) anywhere. Christ, Paul Stanley's a better player probably. Then again, Frehely did have a smoking pick-up, so what do I know?
No comments:
Post a Comment