Each decade has it's own icon

[Booker T]

Are there any actors or athletes that have reached a huge level of fame for a certain decade that could be comparable to Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Kiss?

Well, James Dean and Marilyn in the 50's, for sure.

[likethebike]

Dean, Monroe and Brando were definitely icons of the era, probably bigger than icons for subsequent decades. However, I think Elvis eclipsed them (although Brando had the same sort of impact on the movies and theater as Elvis had on music) because he was so controversial and so wildly popular amongst the youth.

Although Ford was a in a great many big box office films, he was never an icon like Brando. Most of his biggest hits were kind of concept hits rather than films carried by the power of an individual actor. When Streetcar came out both on Broadway and in Theaters everyone was talking about Brando. They weren't all talking about Ford in Star Wars.

[3577]

Yet there is no mistaken. The most notorious most known..love em or hate em is KISS in the 70's...no doubt.

Kiss was just one faction of popular music during a part of the 70's. Their image and music did not embody the entire popular music landscape and culture of the decade. You need to stop overrating that band. They were big for a time, but not as big as you wish they were….

An often underrated rock band most popular and succesful in the 70's.

The co-operative of their albums is often overlooked. Unlike most bands, both those days and these days, KISS songs are not written and performed by only one lead-singer. The original line-up of Paul, Gene, Peter and Ace (as well as later drummer Eric Carr), all took turns writing various compositions and playing lead singer on them, and they all sing good (especially Paul Stanley). Now, how many modern bands (or even 70's rock bands as Led Zeppelin) can you say have the chops to do that? Not many.

In 1975, KISS made a bold move by releasing a live album. It would be the make or break album. This would be their attempt at capturing their live-act on vinyl, and the move paid off. The album is still considered to be one of their best, and one of the largest selling ever for the band.In the next few years that followed, KISS would be the most popular band in the world.

[midnightx]

The co-operative of their albums is often overlooked. Unlike most bands, both those days and these days, KISS songs are not written and performed by only one lead-singer. The original line-up of Paul, Gene, Peter and Ace (as well as later drummer Eric Carr), all took turns writing various compositions and playing lead singer on them, and they all sing good (especially Paul Stanley). Now, how many modern bands (or even 70's rock bands as Led Zeppelin) can you say have the chops to do that? Not many.

And how many of these compositions are memorable 30 years later? Not many.

In 1975, KISS made a bold move by releasing a live album. It would be the make or break album. This would be their attempt at capturing their live-act on vinyl, and the move paid off. The album is still considered to be one of their best, and one of the largest selling ever for the band.In the next few years that followed, KISS would be the most popular band in the world.

A bold move? Bolder than The Allman Brothers Band's 1970 legendary milestone At Fillmore East or bolder than The Who's 1970 Live At Leeds, considered by most rock historians and enthusiasts as the greatest live album in rock history?

Peter Frampton recorded a live album in 1975 (released in January 1976) as a "make or break" project for his own career - and Frampton Comes Alive was a much bigger seller than Kiss' Alive.

And don't overlook the huge amounts of studio overdubbing and re-recording by Kiss for their Alive album -- that isn't very bold, or, maybe it is....

[3577]

The co-operative of their albums is often overlooked. Unlike most bands, both those days and these days, KISS songs are not written and performed by only one lead-singer. The original line-up of Paul, Gene, Peter and Ace (as well as later drummer Eric Carr), all took turns writing various compositions and playing lead singer on them, and they all sing good (especially Paul Stanley). Now, how many modern bands (or even 70's rock bands as Led Zeppelin) can you say have the chops to do that? Not many.

And how many of these compositions are memorable 30 years later? Not many.

In 1975, KISS made a bold move by releasing a live album. It would be the make or break album. This would be their attempt at capturing their live-act on vinyl, and the move paid off. The album is still considered to be one of their best, and one of the largest selling ever for the band.In the next few years that followed, KISS would be the most popular band in the world.

A bold move? Bolder than The Allman Brothers Band's 1970 legendary milestone At Fillmore East or bolder than The Who's 1970 Live At Leeds, considered by most rock historians and enthusiasts as the greatest live album in rock history?

Peter Frampton recorded a live album in 1975 (released in January 1976) as a "make or break" project for his own career - and Frampton Comes Alive was a much bigger seller than Kiss' Alive.

And don't overlook the huge amounts of studio overdubbing and re-recording by Kiss for their Alive album -- that isn't very bold, or, maybe it is....

Take it easy.

I'm just substructure the fact KISS was the most popular band in the 70's. Fact. Not who has the best selling live album. Even though Alive has over-dubs, it's still considered as ''one'' of the best live albums. Not the best. I didn't say that.

[brian]

Dean, Monroe and Brando were definitely icons of the era, probably bigger than icons for subsequent decades. However, I think Elvis eclipsed them (although Brando had the same sort of impact on the movies and theater as Elvis had on music) because he was so controversial and so wildly popular amongst the youth.

Although Ford was a in a great many big box office films, he was never an icon like Brando. Most of his biggest hits were kind of concept hits rather than films carried by the power of an individual actor. When Streetcar came out both on Broadway and in Theaters everyone was talking about Brando. They weren't all talking about Ford in Star Wars.

Well, that's true too

I just remember him becoming very popular all of a sudden because of Star Wars and then Indiana Jones
His character of Han Solo was also very popular and he's the only one of the actors from the film to have had a long term successful film career.

So we got Brando, Dean, Marilyn Monroe is there anybody else that anyone can think of?

Any ideas for who the popular acting icons of the 60's and 70's were?

Any other popular athletes that anyone can think of that is an icon?

I would say other than Michael Jordan that Muhammad Ali would be an athlete that became an icon, but I don't know about any others.

[genesim]

midnightx,

You have a problem..you cannot descern observation vs opinion.

Like one saying..you mean Boy George is more then Prince(not you...but same mentality) when simply talking about fame/notoriety.

Artistic merit is pretty much opinion.

Oh and for the record Peter Frampton was not a bigger seller or a bigger act(even if RIAA chooses to reward it more) and it came AFTER Kiss. You can't be a front runner if you don't do it first. Peter Frampton was on the charts 92 weeks while KISS was on the charts for 110 weeks. Yet...KISS is only certifed GOLD in 1975...gee I don't know...maybe because platinum certfication came about in 1976 and Casablanca records went broke and never resubmitted the album correctly. Lost sales are incredible and an Elvis fan should understand this.

Your stupid observation of overdubbing does get old though. It happened..so what. It happens on lots of live albums, you just choose to target KISS. Listen to the original recordings and you will see not that much was changed...though what that has to do with this, I will never know.

Like Gene Simmons has said, budget did not allow for the changes that Kramer has pretty much lied about. First he said Peter's drums were the only thing live..then Ace's Guitar...BS!

XXXXXXXXXX

As for other popular sports icon how about Babe Ruth or Wilt Chamberlain! The later smashes Jordan in every regard for me.

[Booker T]

And how many of these compositions are memorable 30 years later? Not many.

A bold move? Bolder than The Allman Brothers Band's 1970 legendary milestone At Fillmore East or bolder than The Who's 1970 Live At Leeds, considered by most rock historians and enthusiasts as the greatest live album in rock history?

Their compositions are memorable to their fairly huge fanbase. Among this fanbase, lots of incredible bands/artists have been counted. Interestingly, most of them from the indie world. Nirvana, Wilco, The Replacements, The Melvins, etc. This alone should give KISS' music objective validity, even if one subjectively dislikes their music (which is fine).
KISS Alive! was bold because their records previous had all been huge commercial failures. To put out an expensive live double and expect that to put them over was an insane roll of the dice. And it paid off, suprisingly.
Anyone saying Live At Leeds is the greatest live album in rock history doesn't know what they are talking about. That is Jerry Lee Lewis' Live At The Star Club, easily.

[genesim]

Not only were they commercial failure but the material on Alive! offered absolutely nothing new!

Of course to the trained ear many of the songs were drastic improvements...Rock Bottom having a very cool solo outro and Rock And Roll All Nite having a solo where the original had none at all.

But I digress, the point is that to say that isn't a bold move is a completely foolish notion. Most people that didn't know better would call it career suicide.

Like Gene said about the execs opinion "why should we put out a live album...noone buys live albums...and KISS don't sell records" And like Paul said "like with fruit lining up on a slot machine it EXPLODED!"

Bogart put the tour on his American Express and the powers that be bet on this band and all together put their balls on the table. There really is very few sweeter stories.

When I think of ROCK albums..that is song to song pure ROCK...Alive! smacks down most. Allmond Brothers??? PUHLEASE. Yeah flash instrumental guitar but I don't think of it exactly as in your face HEAVY METAL.

Dude I wanna Rock N Roll party not a see how cool I play crap or ballads till I vomit. 14+ minutes on any song is alot to ask of any audience. This isn't jazz improv!

p.s. Anyone else get the feeling that midnightx hasn't even heard the album let alone being schooled enough to put it down?

[midnightx]

Their compositions are memorable to their fairly huge fanbase. Among this fanbase, lots of incredible bands/artists have been counted. Interestingly, most of them from the indie world. Nirvana, Wilco, The Replacements, The Melvins, etc. This alone should give KISS' music objective validity, even if one subjectively dislikes their music (which is fine).

You are confusing my position on Kiss. I never claimed they weren't immensely popular and influential. I have a handful of their albums and I am well versed with their material. My position is that they were not the biggest band from the 70's - or the decade's sole icon, especially considering their popular run was for only 1/3 of the decade.

Anyone saying Live At Leeds is the greatest live album in rock history doesn't know what they are talking about. That is Jerry Lee Lewis' Live At The Star Club, easily.

Easily? You seem to know your music, but to dismiss Leeds is quite odd considering its reputation. Shocking.

[Booker T]

I ain't dismissing Leeds, man, it is one of my favourite albums by one of my favourite bands. I am just dismissing it as the "best ever". I don't think it comes close to Jerry Lee. If you disagree, that's alright too.
KISS were not the decade's sole icon, sure, but is there a band/artist from the era that comes closer to the idea of image being an essential part of the equation? As was also true of Elvis, Beatles and MJ? Somehow, I just can't see Elton/Zeppelin as fitting in with this, somehow. Of course, KISS don't fully, either, but they seem closer to me.
Genesim, I think you are going a bit far by putting down other groups to favour KISS. What they did is great for them, but not really anybody else besides maybe AC/DC. All types of music are great.

[genesim]

How am I putting down other groups? I like that "arteest" stuff too, but to call the other albums "bolder"...I don't see it. If anything they are more in line with the movement of the time.

KISS stands alone to me and to foolishly say they were only 1/3 of the decade when they took off in 1975 with their highest selling album makes no sense. Another sign that midnightx is unfamiliar with the band. What albums would those be anyway in the ones that you are "well versed".

Kind of like saying that Elvis was only a small part of the 50's when he happened to break nationwide at the over halfway mark in 1956...55 if you are pushing it..

Oh yeah and AC/DC also a great band..but their most prominance came in the 80's...sadly though..because the Bon Scott era will always be the best for me.

[Booker T]

Alive charted the longest, but didn't necessarily sell the most. Alive II sold more, IIRC, as did Smashes Thrashes And Hits.
I don't think midnight isn't familiar with the group, he just isn't the fan we are. Ain't a competition anyway.
I think we've made our point here, even if others disagree. Let's do a KISS thread and talk about their music, I'd be up for that.

[midnightx]

How am I putting down other groups? I like that "arteest" stuff too, but to call the other albums "bolder"...I don't see it. If anything they are more in line with the movement of the time.

KISS stands alone to me and to foolishly say they were only 1/3 of the decade when they took off in 1975 with their highest selling album makes no sense. Another sign that midnightx is unfamiliar with the band. What albums would those be anyway in the ones that you are "well versed".

Kind of like saying that Elvis was only a small part of the 50's when he happened to break nationwide at the over halfway mark in 1956...55 if you are pushing it..

Oh yeah and AC/DC also a great band..but their most prominance came in the 80's...sadly though..because the Bon Scott era will always be the best for me.

Yes, Kiss "took off" in 1975, but did not eclipse other top-tier acts in terms of sales and touring revenue. And while Kiss was enjoying its greatest success in 1977, artistically credible acts like Led Zeppelin were still selling out multiple nights in stadiums and arenas in every U.S. market they played. Kiss was big, but their cartoon persona was bigger than the music. By the time the "solo" albums were released in 1978, the band's market share was decreasing. You are talking about a fairly small window of mass-marketing and mass-appeal that the band enjoyed. That does not translate to iconic status for an entire decade. The Kiss fanboy world continues to have trouble dealing with reality.

[Booker T]

Yes, Kiss "took off" in 1975, but did not eclipse other top-tier acts in terms of sales and touring revenue. And while Kiss was enjoying its greatest success in 1977, artistically credible acts like Led Zeppelin were still selling out multiple nights in stadiums and arenas in every U.S. market they played. Kiss was big, but their cartoon persona was bigger than the music. By the time the "solo" albums were released in 1978, the band's market share was decreasing. You are talking about a fairly small window of mass-marketing and mass-appeal that the band enjoyed. That does not translate to iconic status for an entire decade. The Kiss fanboy world continues to have trouble dealing with reality.

But Zeppelin were awful live in 1977, even if their recently-released LP was one of their finest. Even if KISS were not as artistically credible as Zeppelin (and they are not, overall), their shows were far, far more enjoyable affairs, without half-hour bow, drum and keyboard solos. I saw both acts that year (my parents were cool).
Would you agree that KISS do have an iconic status overall (ignoring the music issue)? And if so, who in the 70's would you argue has a comparable status, in terms of overall fame? If not KISS, who then?

[midnightx]

Yes, Kiss "took off" in 1975, but did not eclipse other top-tier acts in terms of sales and touring revenue. And while Kiss was enjoying its greatest success in 1977, artistically credible acts like Led Zeppelin were still selling out multiple nights in stadiums and arenas in every U.S. market they played. Kiss was big, but their cartoon persona was bigger than the music. By the time the "solo" albums were released in 1978, the band's market share was decreasing. You are talking about a fairly small window of mass-marketing and mass-appeal that the band enjoyed. That does not translate to iconic status for an entire decade. The Kiss fanboy world continues to have trouble dealing with reality.

But Zeppelin were awful live in 1977, even if their recently-released LP was one of their finest. Even if KISS were not as artistically credible as Zeppelin (and they are not, overall), their shows were far, far more enjoyable affairs, without half-hour bow, drum and keyboard solos. I saw both acts that year (my parents were cool).
Would you agree that KISS do have an iconic status overall (ignoring the music issue)? And if so, who in the 70's would you argue has a comparable status, in terms of overall fame? If not KISS, who then?

I've already stated that the 70's did not have one act that embodied the decade, that comes out of that era as the decade's sole icon. Elvis and The Beatles are in a unique position. There were a handful of highly influential acts that were supremely huge during parts of the 70's.

Yes, Led Zeppelin was a mess in 1977 (particularly Page), but there were still a few nights when they were "on." Did you happen to be at the LA Forum on 6/21/77 or 6/23/77? I'm sure a Kiss show from 1977 would have been an entertaining spectacle to see live (I heard a handful from underground sources), but I'll take a 30 minute John Paul Jones classical piano solo over it any day of the week.

[Booker T]

Yes, Led Zeppelin was a mess in 1977 (particularly Page), but there were still a few nights when they were "on." Did you happen to be at the LA Forum on 6/21/77 or 6/23/77? I'm sure a Kiss show from 1977 would have been an entertaining spectacle to see live (I heard a handful from underground sources), but I'll take a 30 minute John Paul Jones classical piano solo over it any day of the week.

First of those Zep dates. One of the heartbreaking disappointments of my concertgoing career. I so wanted Zep to be Godlike that night. I've seen even Aerosmith do better shows, for me. Also in that era, Stones in 78 in Anaheim, another bitter and lame spectacle. Wish I would have been into Springsteen then, I missed his best year!
On the second bit, different strokes! I personally cannot deal with long Zep solos. Whereas I could listen to Duane Allman all day.
On your point about there being no one icon that can compare with Elvis/Beatles in a true sense in the 1970's, I'll agree with you overall.

[genesim]

A handful....Jimmy Page doesn't know how to play a straight solo..every single song has to be Dddddrrrrraaaaaawwwwwnnnnn out with guitar stroking.

but I'll take a 30 minute John Paul Jones classical piano solo over it any day of the week.

Pity that. I can't imagine anyone comparing the two would pick that. If I want a piano solo there are far better performers. If I want a Rock N Roll show I am going to see KISS(in their prime).

Now if I am listening to studio...well that is a different story. I enjoy them both, but Led sucked live.

BUT as it stands, the original question..is while you don't think anyone dominated like Elvis or Beatles(and noone is arguing this), who dominated the most musically, image wise, worldwide phenemonon...etc. Give it your truly best shot and add it all up.

KISS vs Elvis magazines did exist. Led was recognized later by aging hippies(and rightly so).

[Booker T]

A handful....Jimmy Page doesn't know how to play a straight solo..every single song has to be Dddddrrrrraaaaaawwwwwnnnnn out with guitar stroking.

DUDE! Stairway To frickin' Heaven!!! That defines rock and roll guitar solo as much as Chuck Berry does!
Led Zep were great live from 69-72, some from the last year. 73 was fair. 75 and 77 awful.

[midnightx]

A handful....Jimmy Page doesn't know how to play a straight solo..every single song has to be Dddddrrrrraaaaaawwwwwnnnnn out with guitar stroking.

but I'll take a 30 minute John Paul Jones classical piano solo over it any day of the week.

Pity that. I can't imagine anyone comparing the two would pick that. If I want a piano solo there are far better performers. If I want a Rock N Roll show I am going to see KISS(in their prime).

Now if I am listening to studio...well that is a different story. I enjoy them both, but Led sucked live.

Zeppelin sucked live? No official live recording from Kiss is in the same league as the 1972 Long Beach and LA shows from Zeppelin's How The West Was Won or the 1970 Royal Albert Hall gig found DVD. Zeppelin were superior musicians. That is undisputed.

No Quarter is probably greater than anything Kiss ever laid down on tape - so, yes, I would prefer Jones' solo during No Quarter over a 1977 Kiss performance of Makin' Love.

If I want a Rock N Roll show, I'm going to see Elvis at 8:00PM on June 27, 1968 or The Who from 1970 -- not Kiss.

[genesim]

blah blah blah. Guess you couldn't answer the question. I know what your OPINION is on what you like better or what you think is pure rock(Allmond Brother...NOT).

And you want to make me roll over laughing? Detroit Cobo Hall 1975 less then anything on How The West Was Won?? You call that a rock n roll high energy show? Did you not see the YAWNING? Dude you need to get some live shows of Kiss and get schooled.

Dude a great performance is Ball and Chain by Janis at the Monteray Pops festival...a 20 minute long guitar solo is stroking at best. No different then a jazz improv...but don't you dare say that is some deep skill. It is noodling plain and simple.

But the question remained about the 70's icon given all the parameters...

[midnightx]

blah blah blah. Guess you couldn't answer the question. I know what your OPINION is on what you like better or what you think is pure rock(Allmond Brother...NOT).

And you want to make me roll over laughing? Detroit Cobo Hall 1975 less then anything on How The West Was Won?? You call that a rock n roll high energy show? Did you not see the YAWNING? Dude you need to get some live shows of Kiss and get schooled.

Dude a great performance is Ball and Chain by Janis at the Monteray Pops festival...a 20 minute long guitar solo is stroking at best. No different then a jazz improv...but don't you dare say that is some deep skill. It is noodling plain and simple.

But the question remained about the 70's icon given all the parameters...

This rant was incomprehensible.

[Booker T]

And you want to make me roll over laughing? Detroit Cobo Hall 1975 less then anything on How The West Was Won?? You call that a rock n roll high energy show? Did you not see the YAWNING? Dude you need to get some live shows of Kiss and get schooled.

I think even Ace Frehley would disagree! And, what in the world is Larger Than Life but a pretty hilarious attempt by KISS at rewriting Zep's Custard Pie and For Your Life? And this comes from someone who has more personal affection for KISS than Zep. But, I've said my peace.
Also, that performance of Ball And Chain in Monterey Pop is amazing, but has a lot of guitar noodling cut out as well, check the unedited version on Rhino's box set chronicling the event.

[Booker T]

Zeppelin sucked live? No official live recording from Kiss is in the same league as the 1972 Long Beach and LA shows from Zeppelin's How The West Was Won or the 1970 Royal Albert Hall gig found DVD. Zeppelin were superior musicians. That is undisputed.

On the other hand, just in fairness, MX, I can tell you that the live album Zep did release at the time, The Song Remains The Same, didn't light up too many parties, let me tell ya. The most unplayed album in everybody's collections. Whereas KISS Alive lit up every party.
And John Coltrane was a better improvisational musician than Zeppelin, so I'd rather hear him improvise. But I'll take them both, overall.
KISS were song-based, fast, that is why so many punk bands loved them, including the Ramones and all the future bands who were influenced.

[midnightx]

Zeppelin sucked live? No official live recording from Kiss is in the same league as the 1972 Long Beach and LA shows from Zeppelin's How The West Was Won or the 1970 Royal Albert Hall gig found DVD. Zeppelin were superior musicians. That is undisputed.

On the other hand, just in fairness, MX, I can tell you that the live album Zep did release at the time, The Song Remains The Same, didn't light up too many parties, let me tell ya. The most unplayed album in everybody's collections. Whereas KISS Alive lit up every party.
And John Coltrane was a better improvisational musician than Zeppelin, so I'd rather hear him improvise. But I'll take them both, overall.
KISS were song-based, fast, that is why so many punk bands loved them, including the Ramones and all the future bands who were influenced.

I am very well aware of the Song Remains The Same debacle.