Off Topic Messages

Kiss and Elvis

Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:24 am

http://www.kiss-supreme.com

Kiss and

Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:30 am

... Kiss and Elvis? Five men in silly outfits...?

Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:55 pm

You have to admit, both ruled in the 70's. As the greatest entertainer and greatest rockband. Like em or not, they have the most loyal and true fans around the globe.

Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:14 pm

3577 wrote:both ruled in the 70's.


I don't think so.

Tom

Kiss and

Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:25 pm

.... I never was into Kiss simply because their music was hardly ever heard on Dutch Radio, so I really know little about them. I dont think they made much of an impression outside the US... Japan maybe? O well, they should have left those silly suits long ago. But Kiss without the suits and make- up isnt Kiss, I guess? Spiderman, and all other superduper heroes still dress up like 40 years ago, so I guess Kiss can get away with it too!?

Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:50 pm

KISS did stop to wear those outfits and make-up. In 1983, but became the real KISS again in 1996. (make-up)

Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:15 pm

what's Elvis without a pompadour?

what's Elvis standing still as he sings?

what's Elvis without a jumpsuit?

what's the Beatles without moptop bowl haircuts?


Every act has a gimmick.


Make that: every good, high-paid, well-known, enduring act has a gimmick.

KISS qualifies of course.

Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:13 pm

Not to have yet another thread of their own, though :evil: :

http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... highlight=


P.S.

Ger, in all truth, in their heyday of the '70s, their impact on the U.S. radio was rather minimal, although I think their LPs charted decently and I certainly saw (and knew) Kiss fans decked out in black t-shirts.

I think disco and the like was many times more popular in hindsight.

Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:30 pm

For KISS, their growing devoted fanbase and concert venue aspect made them HUGE.

They sold millions of records and sold-out auditoriums WITHOUT the aid of radio - which as Greg pointed out, preferred Disco at the time.


TV helped - variety show appearances,
and commercials for KISS merchandise.

(virtually the same kind of youth-targeted merchandise that
ELVIS® had in the 1950s and THE BEATLES® had in the 1960s)

KISS® was the next iconic powerhouse in rock/pop culture.

In that sense, I agree they ruled the 1970s.



- KISS took advantage of TV, and toys.
(just like Elvis and Beatles did)

- shame on them.

Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:26 pm

Like i said, KISS ruled. No doubt.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:53 am

Aside from comments from the fans here, I would still say the mass popularity of Kiss in that time period is a bit over-stated. Pop music for young people was already splintering. Kiss comes in somewhere between hard rock (now "classic rock") where it was never truly accepted and pop music, where it never really charted well in a time when singles still mattered.

Glad to see this moved to "off-topic." :wink:


http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/v ... highlight=

Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:24 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Aside from comments from the fans here, I would still say the mass popularity of Kiss in that time period is a bit over-stated.


Anything over-stated about Elvis Presley only comes from "fans" too.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:01 pm

3577 wrote:You have to admit, both ruled in the 70's. As the greatest entertainer and greatest rockband. Like em or not, they have the most loyal and true fans around the globe.

Neither "ruled" in the 1970s.

Likely the greatest single act for the decade was Elton John, while as far as rock bands one has to acknowledge Led Zeppelin as the top favorite.

Kiss do have a secure grip on the title of #1 costume-rockers of all-time, though. They really innovated in makeup and outfits.

DJC

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:06 pm

drjohncrapenter wrote: Or greatest money-whoring band.


The Beatles?

They (dba Apple) are suing EMI for $53 million.

Right now - this week - as you read this - check the headlines


That particular whore is mad and wants money owed her!




--- ps ---
Beatles also wore costumes
(and silly gay sh*t at that)

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:11 pm

Although the quote is as accurate as your latest comments are flaccid, it's pretty sad to notice you're now making them up.

DJC

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:14 pm

drjohncrapenter clearly displayed his PATHETIC HAUGHTY IGNORANCE about current music news when he wrote:Although the quote is as accurate as your latest comments are flaccid, it's pretty sad to notice you're now making them up.

DJC



Allow GG to educate you, boy!


Read and Learn jackass!


http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/ 2005/12/16/beatles-emi-lawsuit.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=84193

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20051216/en_music_eo/17986

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business ... -headlines

http://www.albumvote.co.uk/news/news.php?id=988

http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2005/ 12/16/apple-beatles-jobs-cx_cn_1216autofacescan09.html

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/results ... le%20Corps

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/showbiz/ s/191/191854_beatles_to_sue_record_label.html


pick any link and you'll not be as stupid as you made yourself out to be on this thread.



- know alot about whores, huh? (maternal data?)

DJC => stupid fool.
Last edited by Graceland Gardener on Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:39 pm

Do you even know the definition of the word "quote"? Or what it means when the "Quote" function is used in a posting on this MB?

Are you illiterate?

That might explain your latest embarrassment above.

DJC

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:42 pm

Finished reading all those news link yet?




The embarrasment is yours.


You asserted I "made up" the story about Beatles suing EMI for 35 years of owed royalties.


Sorry - it's true.


Money-whoring bands date back to the 1960s.



Trust Doc - him know sooo much about the Beatles.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:05 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:You asserted I "made up" the story about Beatles suing EMI for 35 years of owed royalties.

You are really quite dense. I never asserted such a thing.

Learn the definitions of "quote" and "comments," revisit my post, and try to comprehend my statement about what you made up.

I'm not holding my breath.

DJC

Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:26 pm

I wish you would hold your breath....til blacking out.


---

Costume Rockers date back to 1965-
Paul Revere & The Raiders

1967 - The Beatles and The Rolling Stones made silly costume spectacles of themselves.

and money-whoring managers who dress a star in goldleaf costume
dates back to 1957.

---

post a pic of Elvis and Paul Stanley side by side:
Elvis in one of his gaudy flashy 70s jumpsuits,
and Paul in his star-studded outfit.

Same look.

The Same.

Only difference: Paul Stanley never got fat.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:13 pm

what's Elvis without a jumpsuit?



Cool.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:39 pm

Okay Genesim....anytime you wanta jump in here :lol:

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:09 pm

Image





Image

Image

Image

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:29 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
3577 wrote:You have to admit, both ruled in the 70's. As the greatest entertainer and greatest rockband. Like em or not, they have the most loyal and true fans around the globe.

Neither "ruled" in the 1970s.

Likely the greatest single act for the decade was Elton John, while as far as rock bands one has to acknowledge Led Zeppelin as the top favorite.

Kiss do have a secure grip on the title of #1 costume-rockers of all-time, though. They really innovated in makeup and outfits.

DJC


Im talking USA only. Elton ''Faggy'' John? I know you protect youre own kind. And Led Zeppelin? Maybe the very early 70's.

Its seems very hard to admit for you, djc, when someone else knows about facts. Please for once, stop the arrogant attitude, but i guess its to late. Keep puzzle about the beatles, and leave the real music to the proffesionals.

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:38 pm

I wonder if he had Lamar in charge of the pyro? :lol:
Image