Enjoyed that clip. Yet another reason I wish I could have gone to this year's Comic-Con.

NP: Nevermore "This Godless Endeavor"

I hope they didn't fire Paul Stanley to hire Dan Nelson !!

Damn good.

They did do one more album after Revenge. The sadly forgotten "Carnival of Souls".

Thayer is nasty, and on a Tele to boot!

Yes, one of the most underated albums of all time. If released today i think it would be a big hit.

Great job Tommy!!!

KISS are icons!

Where's all the "Greed $immons" and all that crap?? You know, Stanley's a queer and whatnot . . .

Thank God. Those guys need to move out of mommy's house. Hopefully they'll start slowly and just get some crappy job and won't be able to afford internet for awhile.

We could all use a break from these ass-hats.

are some ugly ass dudes...

Yes,. i thought (think) that it is a great album, i still listen to it every so often, i think if this album was released today, it would do well, it would sell to all the Kiss fans, plus all the other rock fans, it would of done well then but with all the reunion stuff going on it was released and that was about it, an way, i thought it was written well, some of Pauls best rythm playing, Bruce was great , all n all it was a 9 out of 10.

And for me, yes i respect the Beatles for what they had done, in my opinion, any one who stepped up to the pump back then could of been as big as they were(are), i dont think they are (were) great muscians, they were just good, yes they did write a ton of good songs, and most were good to great, they are over rated to me, they were on of the first to make it big, and to me it could of been anyone. And They have never in their dream could of put on a show like kiss does, hell no one can do it to this date!!!!

let me guess, you were born in 1986? It could have been anybody? But it happened to be a band that wrote album, after album, after album of brilliant material...as far as John's guitar playing, he's better than you think, AND it was SO not about laying down some shred guitar. he also played just about any instrument you put in front of him, along with Paul, and writing/arranging some of rocks most complicated songs. Maybe not the most complicated guitar pieces, who the F cares.

Ac/DC, you're a good man(or woman). But Duece, while a great song, one of my favorites of KiSS, is nothing much on bass, guitar, etc, as far as technical playing. I'm not dissing it, but Its still great playing cuz its to the point, love ACE's work on it. But its nothing tough. But again, that's not the point of great music.

They should've performed unplugged rather than unmasked.

And by "unplugged", I mean "not plugged into their amps or the PA system". Ha.

1967 - And they have sold like what - around 500 million albums, thats not good, thats great,

Anybody who can't acknowledge the fact that the Beatles are the most influential band in history simply doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

And no, I'm NOT hardcore Beatles fan. I will take the Stones over the Beatles any day...I'm actually a HUGE Stones fan, but I'm not a fucking sheep who would petulantly insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Stones are/were more influential, or are/were even better artists.

'Cuz that would be total bullshit. I prefer the Stones' dangerous, edgy, blues-driven guitar attack much more than the Beatles' more melodic, artsy approach, but as far as REAL musical artistry is concerned, there's really no competition.

There's a big difference between "best" and "favorite".

C'mon, man...a girl into KISS, AC/DC and ZZ Top would be a thing of beauty!

My girlfriend listens strictly to Top 40 radio, and it drives me fucking insane.

My wife likes my favorite bands as well. The reason I used those 3 bands as an example is because they have always had a predominantly male audience.

was a grundge attempt. I like the 'Master and the Slave' song track 2, I think. if you burn your own cd's as I do. there's 3 or 4 to pull off of that CD. put it right next to revenge 4 or 5 songs and hide it in your CD player. Everyone puts out garbage CD's at least once every 10 yrs. or so. And speaking of garbage CD's ... St. Anger is right there too. Must say the DVD of st. anger is the real gem, live with modern-day snare. If Kirk added some leads ... btw

LED ZEPPELIN is where it all begins as far as Metal (AC/dc, metallica, Iron Maiden. Yes I think the mighty mighty ZEP is responsible more so than beatles. imo. 4 metal specificallyu.

Well.. I AM a Capricorn, but she's a Gemini.. So much for that song..

Actually, her favorites were always from the lighter side (Sting, Billy Joel, etc.), but over the last 9 years she has seen all of my faves with me. She enjoys the music and shows, and basically takes an interest in my bands as a couple.

Rumor has it Paul was trying out for Anthrax!!!I must amit Tommy Thayer sounds much better the Ace!

that's cool, fantastic woman. and if I have to put up with Sting or some Joel, I could deal if I can sprinkle in some of my rock, & not have to listen to top 40. You can at least find some middle ground. When you're mellowing out, candle light diner, appease her, let her have her Sting, tell her how much you agree with the lyrics to "if you love somebody, set them free". she'll think you are a well rounded, modern man....then it frees you up to listen to "Let there be rOck" on a friday afternoon in the car. Brilliant.

KillEddie- Zep definitely has the large influence on hardrock/Metal, but for rock, just about any musician born circa 1950 was heavily affected by their Ed Sullivan appearance & influenced to join a band...Kiss were infected. Aerosmith, they all loved the beatles first. (stones too)

as a matter of fact, Ozzy's favorite alltime band is the Beatles. While they grind you with their molten metal, Ozzy would throw in a Beatle-esc melody....and while the Beatles aren't considered hard rockers, before the Zeps/Sabbath/Purple, the Beatles could be as heavy as any, first feedback, songs like "She's so heavy", and Helter Skelter is considered by many to be the first metal song.

You two are awesome! Love your posts, and you had me laughing on a shitty day, so thanks!

Okay, so what's the secret to getting your lady to open her mind to "our" brand of music? Mine won't even let a note dribble out of the speaker before she either leaves the room or non-chalantly turns the stereo down or off! But when the "David Cook" CD comes out, I'm expected to sing along - I'd rather stick needles in my eyes! Any advise would be great. She likes some decent rock and roll (i.e. Springsteen, Mellancamp, some vintage KISS) but her CD's are pretty pop-current!

The KISS vs. Beatles debate is SO stupid! The Beatles affected and influenced EVERYTHING that came after them, not just in rock and roll, but in EVERY other genre, be it pop, classical and even country music. To even argue that KISS or any other band could even touch them is absolute ignorance.

I took my girlfriend to see both Heaven and Hell and Iron Maiden.

H&H, she kinda liked, but Iron Maiden was a bit over-the-top for her...plus she got the impression that Bruce was very full of himself...perceptive, ha!

I told her that Iron Maiden is actually very upbeat and happy as far as metal bands go, so I won't be taking her to see Slayer anytime soon.

right on!...this is dead true, & also a compliment(you might not think), but I thought you WERE a girl! I swear. Cuz the name, Brianca, & you more than anyone(this is a compliment) have more "sensitive", open minded posts. Please don't take that as a put down. I guess you picture certain people by their tone...RIOTACT666, i have a clear vision. anyhow.

I try to sweeten the girls up with a hard rock band, but find a more poppy song. Like AC/DC you go with "Shot down in flames", that's more catchy, big hooks, melody. As an example....or find that middle ground. I've had many girlfriends into classic rock, beatles/Stones, some Asmith.

I wish I had an answer for that! I think the reason it works out well with my wife and I is because she's not into music as much as all of us on here are. She's more passionate about her flower beds and cooking (I swear I'm not dropping a female stereotype.. - Those of you who have an Italian GF or wife know what I'm talking about!). If she took music more seriously, it may have been an issue..

I do find women that are WAY into music are over the top sometime. I hate to sterotype, but its like they are trying to prove they know it, to be taken seriously. Some girls might like Zep a bit, or some Stones, but if a girl know Zeppelin started as the New Yardbirds, or wears her satins, "like a lady', then it gets scary.

Brianca, I hope I didn't offend. I DEFINITELY didnt mean that as a put down in any way. Brianca reminded me of Bianca, and I just had that in my mind. Your posts are different too.

To the dilrod asking where we were at, yeah, sorry, your sister just got off me, I've been busy all day.

Well, I guess temporarily, you can remove the "imposter" label from the "$cab Imposters", considering they showed their ugly mugs without Ace and Peter make-up, but they are still mediocre $cab fill ins.

Playing the Hard Rock eh?? That holds about 1500 people, so that puts them on par with their State Fair and casino tour attendance.

Glad to see you made it out "get up". "Playing at the Hard Rock", like it was an offical KISS gig. Where were you comments a few days ago when they were drawing 40, 50, and 90,000?...lol. And Brianca I agree with you on the Beatles vs. KISS thing. The Beatles are the freaking Beatles for crying out loud. I still prefer KISS music because I like a harder edge. But I love me some Beatles too....the later years of the Beatles that is. As far as The Rolling Stones go....can't freaking stand them. Just don't like Jagger's voice at all.

No offence taken, man! I actually pride myself on my open-mindedness, especially when it comes to music. As far as being sensitive, I just think that everyone's opinion is equally valid as long as people are respectful to one another.

Yep, it's funny how you get a picture of certain people on here. It would be an interesting experiment to have people fill in a profile of certain regular posters to see if their visions of that person were accurate. Take for example, "IWinIWon" - I'm certain you could paint a pretty accurate picture of him/her - am I right? ;-)

Not even one flubbed note - & he's sposeta be mimicing Ace??
Frehley rules, botched notes & all....

IWinIwon is on a different plain all together!...maybe English isn't is first language too though, not sure. IF it is then LOOK OUT...

I'm not able to watch the clips at work, just watched this now. There were some "WOW, Tommy, you kicked ass on that!". He played it NOTE FoR NOTE Like Ace. He didn't take it anywhere, to a new level. He played it note for note. He did that well, but its a simple song to play, he's played a zillion times, if he didn't do it to that level he'd be in trouble. Its Ace's licks. He's the Rich Little of KiSS guitar. Again, not knocking him, he's doing what is asked, but its hardly "WOW". And I'm not being negative.

but KISS is louder, harder, & faster. Hence they are better.

What can I say, man. You pretty much knocked that one out of the park!

Like I said, everyone's opinion is equally valid, provided they are respectful, but also somewhat educated about the matters they are speaking on. The post you responded to is neither.

Or just curious. IwinIwon has a myspace site dedicated to ACE. His name is Dominic. He has said it on here, so i don't believe i'm doing anything wrong. I forgot how i got to it, (it was by chance and i just noticed the "writing style", and knew they were one and the same). His pic is there. Looks like a normal 26 yr old guy. Go figure.

Years ago, there was an article featured in the KISS Alive Worldwide magazine about an super-fan from South Americo named Dominic. I wonder if he's the same person?

well said. And I don't discard KiSS contribution to rock n roll performance "art". They took other elements, & exaggerated them, blew the top off of it. In some ways, it was amazing. It really took things by storm. In other ways it came off cheesy, took the edge off of the dangerous side of say Bowie, or NY Dolls, made it too "kiddie" stuff.

KiSS were a major phenomenom. For sure. around 76-77. It was huge, but it was due to mostly none musical aspects. The best songs added to the whole circus. Where with the Beatles, that was, after Elvis, the first HUGE MEGA phenomenon, but that was music first, circus 2nd. Kiss has some cool songs, early, but they were retreading, nothing at all ground breaking.

There were just too many great acts before them to say KiSS were the first real big stage show. Maybe as far as levitating drums, rising stage, yes. But "Their" performance as humans, and musically, they weren't breaking ground or were they better than the bands I mentioned above.

a Blabbermouth Icon. Hero. His command of the language, 2nd to none. NOW we're talking innovative, groundbreaking. He speaks a language twins speak in the womb. Splash of colors and sounds.

yes, he confirmed he's that guy. Dominic. Dom?...maybe english isn't his first language, hence the off beat diction.

I did give Kiss some credit. I said they were a phenomenon. I gave them credit where it was due. But the credit of being the first NON boring rock band, or loudest, or wildest performers, its not credit they deserve. lets call it like it is....KiSS changed rock n roll marketing, I'll give them that. (though the Beatles were marketed fiercely, though the band didn't like it)....

and KiSS maybe the first with the GIGANTIC stage presentation. I don't know of another band that had the drums rise, stage, stairs going up, all that. Stones had lots of inflatable stuff, Zep was the first with the giant Screen behind the stage in 1975...but in my mind, after you keep piling all that stuff on, it gets in the way of the music. Its silly. I get the chills from the music & energy.

I don't think you read my posts correctly. I agree with the Beatles being the biggest influence. BSlash named bands that he thought wiped the stage with KISS or whatever....I don't agree. Deep Purple were ok, but can't stand the vocals or those damn loud ass organs....David Bowie for crying out loud...don't care for him...never did. That's where it got opinionated...in my opinion. I am in no way trying to say that KISS was as influential as the Beatles....I'm not stupid. But in my life....my life....KISS was more influential. I do love the Beatles....I like the Who...can't stand the Stones....just my opinion.

I think Led Zeppelin is awesome too. I think their music is superior to KISS, but the stage show...not close...in my opinion. Led Zeppelin was sloppy...lost your attention. The crowds were almost asleep. Hendrix...also a great guitar influence...don't like his vocals though. Like I said...jut my OPINIONS....lol.

despite those opinion, which are valid, and I have mine, I still recogize greatness. There are band people LOVE, that I don't get, but I still recognize their influence, or their song writing ability. Bruce Springsteen comes to mind. I'm not a fan.

DP does sound a bit dated with the organ, but live they were more dynamic, more powerful, and far more technically proficient than KiSS. HEndrix. Zep. And i realize you can throw technical skills out the window if you can't write a song, or perform. I love KiSS simplicity too. hooks....I don't know, to hold KiSS to that high of standard musically, both studio & live, in my opinion is shallow. There's so much greater, with far more teeth. There, I said it!

you've got to be kidding about Led Zep. Just watch the DVD, right out of the gate, killer, crowd way into it. They aren't little 10 year olds though, so they maybe a bit stoned, compared to a KiSS show.

One thing straight, led zeppelin wasn't sloppy, Page was at times, more towards the later part of their career. The rest of the band were precise....also, we're comparing to KISS!! Come on. Ace Fucking Frehley. Again, I love him, but he's the King of Slop, he's a Jimmy Page wanna be. His style is Jimmy Page light....He Jimmy Page on Zep I, and Ace never progressed beyond that. I mean really.

KiSS might not be sloppy live too, because #1, their songs are basic, simple. to the point. Very easy to play. AND, they play the same songs, the SAME way, EVERY NIGHT for 30 years! Please. They don't go off course for ONE second. They stick 100% to the script. And its an easy script. Like acting in Rocky Movie. You can't go wrong, or sloppy.

Led Zeppelin was 150% more powerful, as a band, then KiSS EVER could have pray for. For get the bombs, the blood, all that kiddy bullshit, just the 4 guys. Bonham alone could bash more power into a rock show...Me thinks you are very single minded Just_Lee....how old may I ask, without being demeaning.

I have to be honest with you guys, when I go to see a live show, I don't want to hear a note-for-note reproduction of the album. I actually don't enjoy seeing a band that is so good live, they sound like their studio work. I've seen KISS nearly a dozen times, and there have certainly been occasions when they didn't play very well. But you know what? That to me is part of the charm of a live show!

I was always a little disappointed when I heard that KISS had "touched up" Alive I and II in the studio. Why? If it's for recording imperfections, okay. But to redo guitar tracks, drum tracks, bad vocals - I think that's sacrilidge! There's nothing better than a live recording when it's real and honest, missed notes, forgotten vocals and all!

Now, having said that, it shouldn't excuse a player like Ace Frehley from being so drunk he can't play his own material. And I've seen shows where Ace WAS so out of it he didn't play well. But there's a difference between playing well and playing your best!

KiSS Alive is basically studio. Did you see the "classic album" series, Eddie Kramer telling how they took audience from like 5 shows & compressed them to make the audience sound huge. And Paul resang parts, Ace replayed....but in defense of Kiss, it was common practice. But it is sort of sacriledge. What's the point then?

I don't mind say Rush doing note for note, but I love when a band takes a song somewhere else, depending on the song. If its a quick 2:00 hooky song, stick to the studio, but that wasn't Zep, they never played it like the studio...Kiss plays it each night not like the studio, but like Alive 1 & 2....right now, KiSS is so safe live its not even funny. Each night, after night, after night, not a note changed. ZZZ. and unlike Rush, its not precision music. Its straight up rock, ready for a change.

i do like KiSS rework live of "I was made for lovin' you". They make it more rough & ready. See, I give credit where credits due for KiSS!

hard for me to debate with someone who reveres KiSS, KiSS, over Led Zep and think Led Zeppelin was boring live. Just watch the DVD from 1970, Royal Albert Hall, if you find that boring, and KISS with their bombs & pyro exciting, you should be going to Barnum & Bailey or a 4th of July Parade over a concert.

And Deep Purple used to complete explode things, trash their set...but really, is that what makes a rock concert good. If that's your barometer of an exciting show, its pretty shallow. its about the energy..

and I will say, in the 70's KiSS put on an exciting show, they had the energy, I won't deny that...but I'd prefer to have been at the show at Winterland in 1975, the black & white filmed show, to 1979 when they are wearing Capes, & look like they raided the wardrobe of the Golden Girls. Jimi Hendrix, with a trio, would blow you away with his playing alone. There's nothing boring about his performance at Monterey Pop, even without the lighting of his guitar....again, what's the point of this argument if you're more impressed with pyro & comic books.

I am old enough to have seen your mighty Zep live in concert myself...not on DVD....in the flesh. Look....I love Led Zeppelin. I'm really not trying to compare them with KISS. To me, it's totally different. Like I said earlier....just my opinions. Zeppelin, Hendrix, Deep Purple....I like something about all of those bands. Even though I liked Rainbow better with Joe Lyn Turner singing. Seen them live...Blackmore is the shit....no doubt. A KISS show is a KISS show....what can I say, I'm a fan...but I'm not some young kid like you seemed to try to say I was. It's all good anyway, I just come in here to have a bit of fun from time to time....I'm not here to make enemies, but I like KISS so fuck off.

just kidding about the fucking off part...lol

opinions are one thing, but you simply haven't done your homework. Zeppelin might be alot of things, THIN Sounding simply isn't one of them. Fact. Kiss would be CRUSHED under their heaviness...and DP, while I know you don't like that keyboard(admittedly dated sounding), again, its fills in the sound 2 fold, & they are simply not thin sounding...Zeppelin is KNOWN for their heaviness, KiSS is Zep Light. Bonham alone assures this....I won't get personal, I simply don't feel you've done your homework....forget the makeup & bombs for a minute, SONICALLY, energy wise, Zep were the standard KiSS hoped to meet. They bashed you over the head....I'm perplexed.

I don't think Led Zeppelin was going for a heavy sounding thing. I mean they play a lot of different sounding things. I think they are more Bluesy in a good way. I think Zeppelin have some great tunes. I own every cd they have. They just didn't do it for ME live as much as on cd. KISS is the other way around in my opinion. I still think Rainbow with Joe Lyn Turner is better than Deep Purple.....lol

And Zeppelin does have a thin sound live...I had to say it. I know you are going to freak, but live....Jimmy Page was the worst of Zeppelin....just my opinon.

1st off, the debate, was regarding KiSS being the 1st band that wasn't boring live, as you claimed. Yes, opinion...and KiSS should have played their last show 30 years ago, yes, again opinion.

so any band that doesn't have a rhythm player is thin, NO Opinion, not fact. Not true...Jimi Hendrix NEVER sounded thin. what about Eddie Van Halen. another player would just be in the way. And when he solo'd, the band did not sound thin...and VH, in 1978, would, and did, utterly just BLOW the doors off KiSS...they didn't need bombs, makeup, comic books, fire, blood & semen. Pure sonic blast of rock n roll.

Re: Page, if you don't like him, whatever. That's fine. The worst, simply a stupid statement. He created some of rocks greatest riffs, they sonically were so powerful, and just_lee/Pyroforever, you are on a small island that feel Zeppelin was thin sounding....

but the most ridicules part of this discussion, after saying Jimmy Page is the worst, you turn around & say KiSS, fucking KISS is the greatest. I love Ace, he couldn't hold a CANDLE to Jimmy Page, HE knows that. he's never created or played anything as complicated as Page. Ace is a poor man's Jimmy Page to top it all off. he plays in that Page Style, but watered down....Ace is fun, but he's rock 101 as far as technical playing....Page for sure could be sloppy live, but if he was sloppy, what's the term for Ace then. he slopped his way through songs & Solos that are not that challenging.

Ace's shock me solo, on Alive II, played well. Easy to play, but its done well...its also complete fixed up in the studio. Hear him play that on that Houston Bootleg that ended up on the Discogrophy, its a completed mess, over saturated with echo, and he's SO sloppy....but I love Ace for that, but how dare you say "Page is the worst", then turn around & applaud KiSS...I feel like I'm debating with 10 year olds that are more impressed with makeup & fire.

I didn't say Jimmy Page was the worst guitar player....I was saying that Jimmy Page was the worst musician live in Led Zeppelin. He often butchered it live...in my opinion. Writing riffs...fuck yea, he was awesome. Staying in key for a solo live....not so good, but to each his own you know. I was not in any way saying Page was the worst. I'm not saying Ace is better either...you see your blind hatred for KISS has gotten in your way of reading my post. I will repeat, I think Jimmy Page was the worst musician on the stage when Led Zeppelin played live. In my opinion, John Paul Jones and John Bonham were way better at what they did in the live setting. And I will say again, every artists touches up live recordings in the studio....fact. But it's all good Bslash, you don't like KISS...fine. There are thousands upon thousands of us who still do....it's all good. I still like Led Zeppelin, just calling it like I see it.

Your statement about Van Halen blowing the doors off KISS....just opinion....prove it...who are you going to get to prove it. You see that's my point. All this bullshit talk about who is better, who is worse is useless. It's all opinionated. Prove it. How??? And you are calling us 10 year olds?....lol

If we can't have a little debate over rock n roll, what is it good for?....rock on.......

I never said I didn't like KiSS...but if we're comparing to Zep...and there's so much live stuff of Zep out there, later on, Page got a bit sloppy, but there's tons of great sound Page, live...and lots of crappy sounding Ace...I love KiSS Alive, but its not really a live album after all.

Page's drug habits caught up with him...lol. Dude...I love Jimmy Page...I fucking love Led Zeppelin...I got everything they have ever released. Songwriting skills are top notch. Live they are ok. I'm not saying KISS is better at all....but when KISS hit the scene in a big way....74/75...I'm talking the beginning...they kicked some ass. They made many bands change their stage shows....believe it...or not. I think that was the point of the poster....which I am too lazy to look up who it was....then the favorite bands thing popped up you know...who judges the favorite band competition you know???? Anyway...hope I haven't offended you in any way...I agree with a lot of what you were posting...I do happen to agree with the other guy about KISS's live show back in the day.

"The Song Remains the Same".....also touched up in the studio. They actually lost 2 bass tracks due to techinal difficulty and didn't know it until they started to mix it down....in the studio. They added the tracks there. Everyone touches up live albums...KISS just lets it be known....lol.

not offended one bit. its cool. As long as people don't get personal, its cool...your right, the live albums, especially in the 70's were all touched up...I think its subjective too, cuz Zep did get sloppy, live, later in their career, 1975 on, but previous they were stellar. I think if you were looking for them to sound like the studio, then yes, disappointing, but that's not what they were after. it wasn't like they couldn't,(well its tough for Plant), but the DVD, the 1970 show sounds great, by my standards.

Where KiSS, and Cheap Trick hit the mark with their live albums, was bringing those songs to live. I want you to want me, or God of Thunder, many others, are just RIPPIN' live, when compared to the sort of watered down studio version.. Or most of the 1st KISS Alive album, the songs are beefed up life. Come on & Love me for example. They added steroids.

Zep were much more improvisational live. Sometimes over indulgent, but...KiSS on the other hand, especially post reunion, is completely scripted. You see one show on the tour, you've pretty much seen it all. Maybe a song change, maybe a F up here & there, but they don't improvise, or change the song one note. I think that's sort of...safe to put it mildly. Lame is better way to describe. it's their 1978 show each time. They are a "heritage" act to the max....I for one find that a complete bore...and I don't hate them, its just done, cooked. Time's up.

I like the fact that Zeppelin was improvisational...that was cool. But man those studio albums of Zeppelin....oh man they are the shit to me....except "In Through The Out Door", which I don't like as much as all the rest. Zeppelin are freaking gods...in my mind. It's a whole different world than the KISS world. But at the end of the day, KISS has there place in rock history too....and they should be in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.

This was a little i don't need you either to Paul.