Off Topic Messages

Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:23 pm

'Bike: I agree about John.

I think if he came along any later, the video era (and he had a few "okay" videos), he would have been trounced.

He's never been an appealing performer visually. He wore that duck-suit in that 1980 NYC Central Park concert for a reason. :roll:

Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:21 pm

We have been over and over this in the past.

You don't want to see the reason why. There are many bands that have fallen into this trap. Kiss hasn't had any current succes, so their records have not been put up for recertification. According to the R.I.A.A. Alive! one of the biggest selling live albums of all time is only certified GOLD???? Nuff said.

I refuse to believe that a album that hit #9 and stayed over a year on the Billboard top 200 only sold 500,000 copies. Case in point, Psycho Circus at 182 had sold 24,000 in a week.

Also as someone on another board pointed out, the first 3 albums have to at the LEAST be over a million in sales.

Kiss has sold a hell of a lot more albums then 19 million and I don't need a paid certification board to tell me so.

This link is closer to KISS real sales..but IMO like I stated above, there are many certifications that are simply not accurate, even on this guys list.

http://www.kissfaq.com/charts/plat.html

Of course where is one of the biggest selling solo artist of all time Bing Crosby????

NO WHERE AND THAT IS BULL CRAP!!! Shows you how accurate this "certification" is.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:38 am

Again, I have no horse in this race (I'm not a fan nor do I actively dislike them) so I'm trying to discuss this dispassionately.

First, 19 million isn't too shabby and their ranking in that list seems about right to these eyes. Assuming the figures are conservative estimates for everyone, the placing seems believable for the era shown. The "rock era" should have been closed when single records stopped selling (or were no longer truly sold en masse.) And previleging "rock"over pre-WWII music is a baby-boomer sleight.

And as I was just discussing in part on the Mariah Carey "ties" Elvis thread, it's easy to downplay the past or to not imagine how huge a guy from the non-rock era was, in this case, Bing Crosby, let alone his "White Christmas" album which sold long past his own reign.

Bing was huge and wasn't the only giant who fell in '77. We probably have lost sight of how popular he once was, given the feuds here about Elvis, the Beatles and at least occasionally Sinatra. But Crosby moved a lot of product and loomed extremely large in the culture.

Like Elvis (himself pre-"sound-scan"), the plants that pumped out his vinyl (and shellack!) can never be truly quantified.

Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:02 pm

The RIAA is far from correct. To a non-fan yeah the figure may seem correct, but on a E board just take a look at his figures before the huge 1992 audit. He at one point in the eighties was certified at the 20 million mark. :roll:

Kiss has been screwed over in more ways then one, and their impact has been entirely understated, but despite this they have still remained popular.

Their figures are dead wrong and I do not accept the pitiful 19 million quote.

But hey, please explain how Alive! which has been estimated at 4 million in the SEVENTIES still remains GOLD??

Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:40 pm

You're probably right.

The RIAA seems very politicized and happy to throw a guy like Elvis under the bus for today's latest chirpy stripper...Kiss can't register any more respect than Elvis garners, which isn't much.

Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:09 am

Gene, on ESPN, has said KISS is the #1 US rock band with gold & platinum.

Now, they'd have to have more than 19 ! - be in the 60 range

Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:21 am

likethebike wrote:I've always been a little clueless on the mass of Elton John's popularity maybe at least in the 1970s, it was a you had to be there thing. But I've always found him solid. He has a way with a melody, can sing a little bit and has written and performed many good songs but I can't see how he became the biggest thing at any one time. I can see him being popular (a way with a melody is a very important thing) but I can't see THAT popular. Maybe his stage shows had something to do with it.


Elton John's sound was very commercially palatable. His singles consisted of melodic, 'hooky' ballads and quasi-Stonesish rockers all delivered in a distinctive voice. His band had a sound, particularly Nigel
Olson's drumming. Elton wasn't the greatest singer at first, but he improved with time, and he had the benefit of a recognizable voice. Another factor was his record label Uni/MCA. They were a relatively new company, and built Neil Diamond into a superstar act 68-72 by focusing primarily on him. They did the same for EJ, and because he was more rock-oriented than Diamond he found a mass audience with both FM rock fans as well as with the top 40 singles listeners.

Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:44 am

GG,

Gene has said that KISS is the U.S. RnR band with the most Gold albums. This is still true.

Every single one of those is undercertified, but the fact that they are indeed Gold is the same as the Elvis syndrome. Many partial sales that will never be counted.

Oh well, it doesn't matter to me anyway. It is the music that matters, and I am just happy that they were popular enough to get my attention.

They are not my favorite Rock band of all time for nothing. No other artist including E speaks to me more personally. It was Gene Simmons attitude that helped me to make my choice to be the best I could be and get educated.

Though I am not knocking other people for their choices, but it cannot be understated the influence they had on me.

Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:31 pm

genesim wrote:It was Gene Simmons attitude that helped me to make my choice to be the best I could be and get educated.

We all look forward to that day.

DJC

Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:01 pm

Wow. Even on Christmas your snide comments are still being spewed. :roll: Such class.

Well Merry Christmas to you anyway.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:18 am

Genesim- I can explain how that record with 4 million sales is still listed Gold. For a record to be certified by the RIAA a record company has to PAY for an audit of that record. For many companies, including say Motown under Berry Gordy, the publicity generated by a Gold or Platinum Record wasn't worth the price of the audit. This is even more so because once a record has been certified at say 4 million sales, a record label has to pay royalties on 4 million sales. Many labels would sooner die. Interesting that during his career, Elvis had but a handful of RIAA certifications. All the back certifications came after they purchased his royalty rights and after the company changed hands as well. This is where Kiss has probably lost a lot of their sales. Also, their big money hey day was in the 1970s when gathering sales figures was not as definitive an art as it is today with soundscan.

The RIAA system wouldn't be necessarily so bad if they didn't push the darn thing as definitive and the fact that it is a self-serving organization. They only count LPs because that's the big money maker in the industry today. However, by excluding the sales of singles, EPs and 78s they can hardly make a definitive list. And also releasing just million sellers kind of skews figures too. With Soundscan, you don't even have to rely on million sellers for the modern era, you have actual sales figures.
Last edited by likethebike on Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:40 am

Likethebike,

I'll just quote the Doc when he has praise for someone. :lol:

I never could understand the exclusion of singles. That is where E is strongest!

You are damn right about the audits and you said it better then I ever have. Though as a comment about KISS, I do feel that Gene Simmons A. Doesn't care, and B. Is a tight wad. In the end the music is what counts. Obviously KISS is less popular on this board(well at least in comparison to Queen. :lol: ) and I can live with that.

Doesn't change the fact that I like them and I consider them to be very influential artists that have never got their due.

For quality listening. Destroyer and Alive! These are Essential purchases. Then their Self titled debut. Of course double platinum isn't a bad place to start either, but I myself will never be a greatest hits man, especially when it comes to KISS!

Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:22 am

Also, I think the fact the ownership of Kiss' original recordings has changed corporate hands so many times over the years also might have had an impact on their relatively modest sales total.

I actually agree that "Destroyer" and "Alive" are great listens. (I was actually dumbfounded when I found that some Kiss fans consider "Destroyer" a bit of a step down preferring the less polished sound of earlier albums.)

I think Kiss' place in rock music history hasn't quite been found yet. I think they did make some worthwhile music even beyond the previously mentioned albums- the fine disco pastiche' "I Was Made For Lovin' You", many of their early single and album tracks like "Deuce", "Cold Gin", "Sure Know Something", "Rocket Ride", "Strutter" even some later or mid-period tracks like the nod to rap or street music on "All Hell's Breaking Loose" and, although many fans and critics despise it, I find "The Elder" at least interesting listening. Even your average non-fan recognizes "Rock and Roll All Night" as one of the great pop singles of the era. As I stated before, they also had some level of influence particularly on the live shows. The dismissal of their music because of the makeup is somewhat hypocritical and lacks historical knowledge. In the 1970s, many acts wore outrageous stage garb including critical darlings like David Bowie and P-Funk and not so critical darlings like John who are still at least respected performers. Their music is not dismissed because of it though. (Elvis image in the 1970s suffers from the same kind of short-thinking.)

However, I personally would never rank them with the super greats like Elvis to Creedence to Chuck Berry to Prince. (Please no this is not rock and roll arguments. It's beside my point.) As fans of movies, books, music etc. we talk so much in superlatives these days that the concepts of good and very good have lost their luster. Everything's either great or garbage. To me, a guy like John Mellencamp or Ricky Nelson, can come along and do something individual have an influence and make some good to great records and it doesn't deserve to be swept away because it is not achievement on the Presley level. Maybe things aren't radically different because these people did what they did but they are a little better at least for the people who have drawn some meaning and enjoyment from their work.
Last edited by likethebike on Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:26 am

Well we can go on about the merits of who is better, and I would KISS above all the ones on your list...save Elvis. But like I said..that is just my opinion.

As for the "costumes", I have stated it before. It wasn't just a "gimmick" for them, or a mood for the day, but it was a statement to their individuality.

If one actually takes the time to listen to their music then they would know what I mean. The overall consensus is not "We" are the Champions...but instead the emphasis is on the word "I" wanna rock n roll all night.

Even more obvious is on the song "I" from the Elder. I too hold the album as not being near as bad as people have said. A low point for sure, but then again what great bad doesn't have some embarrassing moments? An E fan should understand this...Hey Jude anyone???

As it stands Odyssey, World Without Heroes, A Dark Light(ACE CLASSIC!) are well worth seeking out!

Likethebike excellent thought out points for sure!