Joining the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame? - No chance!
Having their own special section in Toys R' Us next to Star Trek and Lord Of The Rings? - Yes!
|
| |
I've always thought Van Halen should be inducted soon.
|
| |
I never really got into KISS a whole lot... but then again, they are legends.
|
| |
They deserve it, that's for sure. They will get it in due time. I think they should have replaced Blondie this year...
|
| |
Blondie is about a thousand times better than all the bands mentioned here.
|
| |
Kiss isnt a good band at all, in my opinion. But they did do alot for the theatrical elements in live rocks shows, plus they seem to be pretty popular. Looks like enough to get them in to me.
|
| |
KISS isn't my thing really, but they do deserve to be in there (eventually).
|
| |
Kiss Deserves it way more than the sex pistols. The SP's only put out on e album and it was complete crap. Kiss put out close to thirty and there was a t least 1 good song on every one of them.
|
| |
I never really liked Kiss. I just don't see what's so great about them.This Message Edited On 08.08.06
|
| |
don't like kiss but if they do get in....i give them props
|
| |
They'll be in as soon as the hall adds their new section - Rock's Greatest Novelties.
|
| |
^^^
|
| |
Yeah I just could never really dig Kiss that much. Blondie on the other hand, she freaking deserves the hall of fame.
|
| |
"Kiss Deserves it way more than the sex pistols. The SP's only put out on e album and it was complete crap. Kiss put out close to thirty and there was a t least 1 good song on every one of them" - Sgt Pepper
i agree they definitely deserve to be in the hall of fame. but they didnt put out close to 30 albums. they realesed 48 albums. ya thats right 48. how many bands have done that?
|
| |
48 albums of crap.
Now how many bands have done THAT?
|
| |
why even comment here then? you suck
|
| |
No you suck! But seriously, Other than wearing face paint and ridiculous outfits on stage, I don't think Kiss really contributed that much to Rock and Roll. They were pretty much, as pulseczar said, just a novelty, and nothing more. I guess you could say that they... paved the way for more crap bands.
|
| |
^ They paved the way for shock rock along with Alice Cooper.This Message Edited On 08.09.06
|
| |
Shock rock isn't even a valid genre or term.
|
| |
No you suck! But seriously, Other than wearing face paint and ridiculous outfits on stage, I don't think Kiss really contributed that much to Rock and Roll. They were pretty much, as pulseczar said, just a novelty, and nothing more. I guess you could say that they... paved the way for more crap bands.
KISS are generally the apex of the extensive melding of hard rock and commercialism that fired up in the 1970s. Very few bands have attained the capitalistic success and franchising that KISS has achieved. Not honoring that would be a disgrace.
|
| |
"48 albums of crap."
And this is coming from someone who likes Gwen Stefani...
|
| |
Gwen has yet to release her 48th work, so I wouldn't make judgments about her albums. I suppose, at least she's catchy...
|
| |
How can you even compare Gwen Stefani to KISS?
|
| |
rock n roll was often clichéd and over-filled with excess, kiss are just too rock n roll, because they forgot to put any talent into their music. Putting Kiss next to Ozzy and Debbie and (Much more importantly) Miles is just retarded.
|
| |
u guys have no idea do you? listen to some of kisses albums and you will see that they do write very good songs(shock me, love gun, and i stole your love just a few). sure they had a few bad songs(forever and i was made for loving you) but they have way more goos songs. and they introduced the theatric aspect to rock and roll.
|
| |
