GarrotTheThief
The Green Jolly Robin H.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- MBTI Type
- ENTJ
kiss it to rock what taylor swift is to country.
this analogy basically states that kiss is pop music that borrows from rock. it's pop music from back in the day. the lead singer from kiss is probably mad for the same reason why most pop artists get mad when they become irrelevant. their music tends to have less substance and be more of a gimmick so it tends to fade away. look at rush for example. rush will always be relevant. the smashing pumpkins will always be relevant. the beattles will always be releveant. kiss is not in this category. they were like x-men figurines...cheap, plastic, and temporary compared to deeper more soulful music.
look at the roots of rock n roll to see what is actually on the tree....you can't really say kiss is rock if you look at rock's ontology.
there really is no way to reconcile the theatrics and simplicity, or pop like structure, of a kiss song to let's say a gene vincent song...there really is little to no similarities. there are more similarities between blues music and rock than there are between kiss and true rock musical structure.
just because there is an electric guitar in it doesn't make it true rock.
i'm not speaking on guns n roses, led zepplin, aerosmith, etc....these are in fact rock bands...but kiss is in a different category. Saying kiss is rock is like saying insane clown posse is rap...only die hard fans will believe that...or people who don't understand what real rap music is.
now i'm not saying kiss is no good, or worthless, or not music, or people who listen to kiss are bad. I'm not making value statements. I'm making analytical statements based on the ontology of rock n roll which is very different from what kiss portended to be...this is based on music structure, history - as in actual events not theoretical things, and objective evidence....i'm not saying one is a better song than the other...but one is certainly more rock n roll...and if kiss is on that continuum it's very far far off to the left where rock and pop overlap.
based on this gene simmons really isn't the spokesperson for rock. he is just a disgruntled has-been pissed off at the current state of rock which is moving closer to it's roots, think jimi hendrix, than to the bizarre theatrics of his time. we see current garage rock moving in this direction...going closer to the blues hence the rise of the slide guitar in rock music again marked by the black keys and jack white among other bands...and we also see some punk rock re-surfacing too. this is a response to bands like kiss that played simple basic music.
this analogy basically states that kiss is pop music that borrows from rock. it's pop music from back in the day. the lead singer from kiss is probably mad for the same reason why most pop artists get mad when they become irrelevant. their music tends to have less substance and be more of a gimmick so it tends to fade away. look at rush for example. rush will always be relevant. the smashing pumpkins will always be relevant. the beattles will always be releveant. kiss is not in this category. they were like x-men figurines...cheap, plastic, and temporary compared to deeper more soulful music.
look at the roots of rock n roll to see what is actually on the tree....you can't really say kiss is rock if you look at rock's ontology.
there really is no way to reconcile the theatrics and simplicity, or pop like structure, of a kiss song to let's say a gene vincent song...there really is little to no similarities. there are more similarities between blues music and rock than there are between kiss and true rock musical structure.
just because there is an electric guitar in it doesn't make it true rock.
i'm not speaking on guns n roses, led zepplin, aerosmith, etc....these are in fact rock bands...but kiss is in a different category. Saying kiss is rock is like saying insane clown posse is rap...only die hard fans will believe that...or people who don't understand what real rap music is.
now i'm not saying kiss is no good, or worthless, or not music, or people who listen to kiss are bad. I'm not making value statements. I'm making analytical statements based on the ontology of rock n roll which is very different from what kiss portended to be...this is based on music structure, history - as in actual events not theoretical things, and objective evidence....i'm not saying one is a better song than the other...but one is certainly more rock n roll...and if kiss is on that continuum it's very far far off to the left where rock and pop overlap.
based on this gene simmons really isn't the spokesperson for rock. he is just a disgruntled has-been pissed off at the current state of rock which is moving closer to it's roots, think jimi hendrix, than to the bizarre theatrics of his time. we see current garage rock moving in this direction...going closer to the blues hence the rise of the slide guitar in rock music again marked by the black keys and jack white among other bands...and we also see some punk rock re-surfacing too. this is a response to bands like kiss that played simple basic music.