Hey there are a few OTHER big tours happening right now, too

[ultimateclassicrock.com]

Clowns in action. Pretending to be the original "4" by painting
2 new faces like they used to is a fraud to me.

Quote
TooTough
Clowns in action. Pretending to be the original "4" by painting
2 new faces like they used to is a fraud to me.

oh come on - like characters in a play - the show must go on -

They play better than the Stones minus Taylor. Sorry but I aint kidding, they perform their hits very well and they sound fresh.

I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

All 4 of them play as if they are enjoying themselves and no matter how many times they play their warhorses, they never sound stale.

I was with Paul two days after the Staples show - i said, how'd ya like the show? he gave me a kind of weird look- i said what? he said, "they've gotta use mick taylor more!"

Awsome stage, I like it!
Carlitos
Tenerife

Pretty cool. I've never been to a Kiss show (probably never will, I have nothing against them and like a few songs), but I almost went and saw "Mini-Kiss" at a strip club once.



I ended up not going because I had to be at work in the morning. But I've always imagined it would have been an epic night. Alcohol, naked women, midgets dressed up as Kiss... how did I pass that up?

We have tickets for the show here in Victoria in a few weeks. I have mixed feelings about going (mostly concerning giving Gene my hard-earned $) but my wife is a big fan, so there you go. Saw them in '96 down in San Jose and it was pretty fun.

Is it just me or should KISS consider dropping "I Love it Loud" and "War Machine" from their set? They kind of bring the energy down along side with the Tommy and Eric solo spots. No need for solos at a KISS show these days, just do 2-3 more songs.

I saw the real KISS once and never have the desire to see them again. I just wanted to see all the original members in makeup. The songs are fun.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

True, but I actually thought he was singing pretty good. The rest of his duties, however...

PS: Most of Stanley's high pitch-screaming IS falsetto, btw - and you gotta use the voice you're born with - hence comparing range is useless, imo

But, as I said, the Kiss show in Oslo last summer was good.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

True, but I actually thought he was singing pretty good. The rest of his duties, however...

PS: Most of Stanley's high pitch-screaming IS falsetto, btw - and you gotta use the voice you're born with - hence comparing range is useless, imo

But, as I said, the Kiss show in Oslo last summer was good.

Listening to Kiss I have always preferred Simmons and Criss...Pauls latest Solo-album is really good on the other hand...(no high-singin there)...

why do I bother you may think....my son is a die-hard Kiss-fan visiting their latest concert this saturday...I have heard hundreds of hours with Kiss music in the car and from his room....

2 1 2 0

Had a lot of friends who were in to kiss, but couldn't see the reason why to be honest. All smoke and mirrors and weak songs..
But hey, some people love them, so good look to them.

Quote
Come On

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

True, but I actually thought he was singing pretty good. The rest of his duties, however...

PS: Most of Stanley's high pitch-screaming IS falsetto, btw - and you gotta use the voice you're born with - hence comparing range is useless, imo

But, as I said, the Kiss show in Oslo last summer was good.

Listening to Kiss I have always preferred Simmons and Criss...Pauls latest Solo-album is really good on the other hand...(no high-singin there)...

why do I bother you may think....my son is a die-hard Kiss-fan visiting their latest concert this saturday...I have heard hundreds of hours with Kiss music in the car and from his room....

I have always prefered Ace Frehley and Peter Criss's voices. They're real. Criss sounds like Rod Stewart on a good day. Ace was just unique.

Too bad they're not in the lineup anymore...

IMO KISS are great entertainers.
Always had fair-priced concert tickets.
Their music is simple, sometimes great, sometimes boring.
Their merchandising is often "too much", but as long as some people are happy buying it...

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

True, but I actually thought he was singing pretty good. The rest of his duties, however...

PS: Most of Stanley's high pitch-screaming IS falsetto, btw - and you gotta use the voice you're born with - hence comparing range is useless, imo

But, as I said, the Kiss show in Oslo last summer was good.

yes but the regular vocal parts of most KISS songs that paul sings are almost an octave higher then most stones songs.

I like Kiss. But I really like what Paul said about about using Mick Taylor more in concerts. He's spot on!

This is not the real KISS, its only Gene, Paul & 2 Clowns.

If ever the real KISS are back together on stage, then I would go for a 3rd time. I want only see Gene, Paul, Ace & Peter on stage! And the current KISS should perform without makeup.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

True, but I actually thought he was singing pretty good. The rest of his duties, however...

PS: Most of Stanley's high pitch-screaming IS falsetto, btw - and you gotta use the voice you're born with - hence comparing range is useless, imo

But, as I said, the Kiss show in Oslo last summer was good.

yes but the regular vocal parts of most KISS songs that paul sings are almost an octave higher then most stones songs.

No, it's not an octave higher. It's higher of course, though, but it's not like Paul's lowest pitch is where Mick reaches on Too Tough

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I saw them last year. Pretty good. But Stanley was NOT good. Compared to Mick he is a joke today. But the show was good, and the roadie (Thayer) had learned Ace's licks.

pauls voice is struggling but to be fair most of the KISS songs are 1 full octave higher then most stones songs. it would be like mick singing 80% of a concert in the falsetto range for 40 years, his voice wouldn't be so hot anymore either

True, but I actually thought he was singing pretty good. The rest of his duties, however...

PS: Most of Stanley's high pitch-screaming IS falsetto, btw - and you gotta use the voice you're born with - hence comparing range is useless, imo

But, as I said, the Kiss show in Oslo last summer was good.

yes but the regular vocal parts of most KISS songs that paul sings are almost an octave higher then most stones songs.

No, it's not an octave higher. It's higher of course, though, but it's not like Paul's lowest pitch is where Mick reaches on Too Tough

mick almost talks most of the stones songs. paul stanleys speaking voice is a lot lower than his singing voice. most KISS songs are right at the top of stanleys range. only a few songs, "i was made for loving you" and some stuff on the elder, does he actually sing words in falsetto. any other time he goes into falsetto its screams and stuff. listen to most KISS songs from the late 80's and stanley is singing most of them even higher close to 40 then he was in the 70's when he was younger

i'd also like to point out that KISS has been around roughly 40 years and probably played more shows then the rolling stones which singing live takes a toll on your voice. since 1972 KISS has only had 6 years off (no shows or less than 10 shows) and 2 of those 6 years paul stanley did a solo tour. compare that to the stones who started 50 years ago but have had about 20 years without any live shows since 1962.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-03 13:02 by keefriffhard4life.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i'd also like to point out that KISS has been around roughly 40 years and probably played more shows then the rolling stones which singing live takes a toll on your voice. since 1972 KISS has only had 6 years off (no shows or less than 10 shows) and 2 of those 6 years paul stanley did a solo tour. compare that to the stones who started 50 years ago but have had about 20 years without any live shows since 1962.

keefriff, I'm probably just as big a fan as you are

But Stanley just isn't in Mick's league when it comes to being a front man, no matter how good he's singing. That was my point.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i'd also like to point out that KISS has been around roughly 40 years and probably played more shows then the rolling stones which singing live takes a toll on your voice. since 1972 KISS has only had 6 years off (no shows or less than 10 shows) and 2 of those 6 years paul stanley did a solo tour. compare that to the stones who started 50 years ago but have had about 20 years without any live shows since 1962.

keefriff, I'm probably just as big a fan as you are

But Stanley just isn't in Mick's league when it comes to being a front man, no matter how good he's singing. That was my point.

stanley is not in micks league as a frontman just like mick as a singer and guitar player was never anywhere close to stanley. did stanley use to move around more? yes. but the higher the notes the more air you need to sing and as you get older you have to concentrate more on it meaning he really has to stay still a lot now. same thing with rob halford from judas priest.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i'd also like to point out that KISS has been around roughly 40 years and probably played more shows then the rolling stones which singing live takes a toll on your voice. since 1972 KISS has only had 6 years off (no shows or less than 10 shows) and 2 of those 6 years paul stanley did a solo tour. compare that to the stones who started 50 years ago but have had about 20 years without any live shows since 1962.

keefriff, I'm probably just as big a fan as you are

But Stanley just isn't in Mick's league when it comes to being a front man, no matter how good he's singing. That was my point.

stanley is not in micks league as a frontman just like mick as a singer and guitar player was never anywhere close to stanley. did stanley use to move around more? yes. but the higher the notes the more air you need to sing and as you get older you have to concentrate more on it meaning he really has to stay still a lot now. same thing with rob halford from judas priest.

Yeah, of course. However, what do you think the audience appreciates the most?

None of them are very good at playing the guitar, though, but good enough.

What's your favourite Kiss album btw?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i'd also like to point out that KISS has been around roughly 40 years and probably played more shows then the rolling stones which singing live takes a toll on your voice. since 1972 KISS has only had 6 years off (no shows or less than 10 shows) and 2 of those 6 years paul stanley did a solo tour. compare that to the stones who started 50 years ago but have had about 20 years without any live shows since 1962.

keefriff, I'm probably just as big a fan as you are

But Stanley just isn't in Mick's league when it comes to being a front man, no matter how good he's singing. That was my point.

stanley is not in micks league as a frontman just like mick as a singer and guitar player was never anywhere close to stanley. did stanley use to move around more? yes. but the higher the notes the more air you need to sing and as you get older you have to concentrate more on it meaning he really has to stay still a lot now. same thing with rob halford from judas priest.

Yeah, of course. However, what do you think the audience appreciates the most?

None of them are very good at playing the guitar, though, but good enough.

What's your favourite Kiss album btw?

my favorite is actually the very first album.

btw i agree with several of the people who like peter criss singing the most. that guy could really wail and despite claims by gene, peter was actually a great drummer until the late 70's when booze, drugs, a car accident and not practicing took its toll.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i'd also like to point out that KISS has been around roughly 40 years and probably played more shows then the rolling stones which singing live takes a toll on your voice. since 1972 KISS has only had 6 years off (no shows or less than 10 shows) and 2 of those 6 years paul stanley did a solo tour. compare that to the stones who started 50 years ago but have had about 20 years without any live shows since 1962.

keefriff, I'm probably just as big a fan as you are

But Stanley just isn't in Mick's league when it comes to being a front man, no matter how good he's singing. That was my point.

stanley is not in micks league as a frontman just like mick as a singer and guitar player was never anywhere close to stanley. did stanley use to move around more? yes. but the higher the notes the more air you need to sing and as you get older you have to concentrate more on it meaning he really has to stay still a lot now. same thing with rob halford from judas priest.

Yeah, of course. However, what do you think the audience appreciates the most?

None of them are very good at playing the guitar, though, but good enough.

What's your favourite Kiss album btw?

my favorite is actually the very first album.

btw i agree with several of the people who like peter criss singing the most. that guy could really wail and despite claims by gene, peter was actually a great drummer until the late 70's when booze, drugs, a car accident and not practicing took its toll.

Mine as well

Probably their most Stonesy album, but there you go...

i guess its stonesy, i just think its the best written of any album they did.