Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime.
----
Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too.
IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto).
BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? =======
1974-1979 for me. ----
Prime in popularity?
Prime in Paul's vocal performance?
Prime in song writing?
Prime in record/concert sales?
=============
Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave."
For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s.
I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. ----
They had more eras (or waves) due to lineup changes. Then there were stylistic changes to consider.
Paul was a very good singer in the '70s. Sometime in the early '80s his range widened. He may have taken some vocal lessons. In 1999 he spent time with a vocal coach to prepare for "Phantom". His voice has been rougher, on and off, since 2004. It's not really that noticable while you're at the show, but the official live recordings tell it like it is. Youtube clips don't always tell the correct story, so I don't judge by them. From the more recent shows I've been to he was at his worst in 2004. He was better in 2009 and 2010, but not at his "Revenge"/"Unplugged" prime. He's rough on some of "Sonic Boom". This coming Monday they'll be meeting in the studio to begin work on their 20th studio cd. It will be interesting to hear what they come up with and how Paul's voice sounds. I'd rather hear imperfections rather than his voice being auto-tuned.
Record sales were up and down throughout their career, just like most long running bands.
'74 - weak sales '75 - "Alive" went through the roof '76 through '79 - very good sales '80 through '82 - very weak sales '83 - sales started to improve with "Lick It Up" '84 through '88 - sales were good '89 through '98 - sales were o.k. '99 through current - The only studio release was "Sonic Boom". Wasn't a big seller, but compared to the majority of long running bands still putting out music, the cd did well. Well enough to warrant recording a new studio cd.
Overall, in the U.S. the majority of KISS' lps have gone gold (500,000 units sold) and platinum (1 million units sold). They're around 40 million units sold in the U.S. and 60 million units sold internationally for a total of 100 million units sold.
Concert ticket sales were up and down, too.
'74 - gathering a following '75 - started to headline in a few U.S. cities '76 through '78 - massive success in the U.S.; toured in the U.K./Europe and Japan (twice) '79 - sales still good, but not as massive '80 - record didn't do so well in the U.S., so no U.S. tour (only a single U.S. show as a warm up show for the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand tours) '81 - record bombed; did not tour in support of it '82 - record didn't do so well; the same goes for the tour with the exception of a very successful tour in Brazil. '83 - off came the makeup; record did better; about the same tickets sales as the previous year '84 through '88 - concert sales ranged from very good to o.k. '90 - long, successful U.S. tour '92 - U.S. club tour sold out; arena tour wasn't successful in the U.S.; did well in the U.K. '93 through '95 - not much touring; successful South America and Japan tours; very successful acoustic tour in Australia and the U.S. '96 through '97 - their most successful tour '98 - didn't reach the heights of the previous tour '00 - tour did well '03 - co-headlining with Aerosmith did well '04 - good ticket sales in some places, poor in others '08 through current - doing very well in North America, South America, the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan
Gregsynth · Member since
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime.
----
Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too.
IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto).
BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? =======
1974-1979 for me. ----
Prime in popularity?
Prime in Paul's vocal performance?
Prime in song writing?
Prime in record/concert sales?
=============
Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave."
For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s.
I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. ----
They had more eras (or waves) due to lineup changes. Then there were stylistic changes to consider.
Paul was a very good singer in the '70s. Sometime in the early '80s his range widened. He may have taken some vocal lessons. In 1999 he spent time with a vocal coach to prepare for "Phantom". His voice has been rougher, on and off, since 2004. It's not really that noticable while you're at the show, but the official live recordings tell it like it is. Youtube clips don't always tell the correct story, so I don't judge by them. From the more recent shows I've been to he was at his worst in 2004. He was better in 2009 and 2010, but not at his "Revenge"/"Unplugged" prime. He's rough on some of "Sonic Boom". This coming Monday they'll be meeting in the studio to begin work on their 20th studio cd. It will be interesting to hear what they come up with and how Paul's voice sounds. I'd rather hear imperfections rather than his voice being auto-tuned.
Record sales were up and down throughout their career, just like most long running bands.
'74 - weak sales '75 - "Alive" went through the roof '76 through '79 - very good sales '80 through '82 - very weak sales '83 - sales started to improve with "Lick It Up" '84 through '88 - sales were good '89 through '98 - sales were o.k. '99 through current - The only studio release was "Sonic Boom". Wasn't a big seller, but compared to the majority of long running bands still putting out music, the cd did well. Well enough to warrant recording a new studio cd.
Overall, in the U.S. the majority of KISS' lps have gone gold (500,000 units sold) and platinum (1 million units sold). They're around 40 million units sold in the U.S. and 60 million units sold internationally for a total of 100 million units sold.
Concert ticket sales were up and down, too.
'74 - gathering a following '75 - started to headline in a few U.S. cities '76 through '78 - massive success in the U.S.; toured in the U.K./Europe and Japan (twice) '79 - sales still good, but not as massive '80 - record didn't do so well in the U.S., so no U.S. tour (only a single U.S. show as a warm up show for the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand tours) '81 - record bombed; did not tour in support of it '82 - record didn't do so well; the same goes for the tour with the exception of a very successful tour in Brazil. '83 - off came the makeup; record did better; about the same tickets sales as the previous year '84 through '88 - concert sales ranged from very good to o.k. '90 - long, successful U.S. tour '92 - U.S. club tour sold out; arena tour wasn't successful in the U.S.; did well in the U.K. '93 through '95 - not much touring; successful South America and Japan tours; very successful acoustic tour in Australia and the U.S. '96 through '97 - their most successful tour '98 - didn't reach the heights of the previous tour '00 - tour did well '03 - co-headlining with Aerosmith did well '04 - good ticket sales in some places, poor in others '08 through current - doing very well in North America, South America, the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan =======
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
jpf · Member since
Amazon wrote: jpf wrote: Amazon wrote:
True, but not the way Skip does it.
----
"You're crying again.
LOL"
Skip, that's the best you can come up with? Even for a Kiss fan, you're pretty stupid. ----
You aren't worth the effort.
I know that makes you cry.
When you can pass 400 level Advanced Calculus classes come see me, you dumbass cunt.
jpf · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110330-oldest-writing-europe-tablet-greece-science-mycenae-greek/
Scientists say it was dificult to decipher the ancient symbols but eventually they agreed it says "Kiss suck!" ----
It actually says "KISS Rocks".
What sucks is you.
jpf · Member since
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: jpf...okay, like I said, I had not had any interactions with you in the past and was a bit taken aback on how it seemed you were always slamming Queen in comparison to other bands.
Brenski kinda attacked me, so I reviewed some of your posts. Although I don't think it was right the way you called me "dumbass" and other things...I think I understand what you are saying *most times*.
I like Kiss too..well, at least up to and INCLUDING "Creatures Of The Night"...but I like Queen MUCH, MUCH more.
I actually LOVE "Destroyer", "Love Gun", "Dynasty", "Unmasked", "the Elder" and "Creatures Of the Night".
What are your favorite Queen albums? ----
News Of The World A Night At The Opera The Game Innuendo A Day At The Races Sheer Heart Attack The Works
Check out KISS' "Revenge" and "Sonic Boom" cds.
jpf · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range.
He lost the range or not, it's very simple.
Truth is he didn't lose range. At all.
----
He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. ======
It was more of a tounge-and-cheek statement: The bootlegs of the tour, show that he could still hit the higher notes. Wembley was right in the middle of the tour--and Freddie had a cold. He still hit higher notes on Wembley (on the bootleg), than the note he said "he couldn't go higher." ---
He could have (and did) have an off night.
I watched all of "Live Aid" over several nights last week (that was a chore; '80s new wave sucked). Anyway, there were a few cringe worthy notes coming out of Freddie. The band was excellent none the less.
jpf · Member since
Gregsynth wrote:
Here jpf:
This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing).
----
Good, powerful vocal performance.
To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different.
Gregsynth · Member since
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: jazzy mercurois wrote: There is no room for "IMO" when you talk about losing range.
He lost the range or not, it's very simple.
Truth is he didn't lose range. At all.
----
He lost range. He told the audience he couldn't go any higher. He could in the '70s. End of story. ======
It was more of a tounge-and-cheek statement: The bootlegs of the tour, show that he could still hit the higher notes. Wembley was right in the middle of the tour--and Freddie had a cold. He still hit higher notes on Wembley (on the bootleg), than the note he said "he couldn't go higher." ---
He could have (and did) have an off night.
I watched all of "Live Aid" over several nights last week (that was a chore; '80s new wave sucked). Anyway, there were a few cringe worthy notes coming out of Freddie. The band was excellent none the less. ========
Yeah, Freddie did hit a few bad notes--but still: It's great (vocally and the band was tight)!
Gregsynth · Member since
jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote:
Here jpf:
This is from Brussels 1986. Freddie completely nailed the 1st verse here. That 1st verse pisses all over the 70s versions. He NEVER went for the high notes in the first verse during the 70s (except for the Crazy Tour performances--but he would oversing the verse--instead of doing the album phrasing).
----
Good, powerful vocal performance.
To me there's Freddie's '70s voice and there's Freddie's '80s voice. Very similar to Elton John's '70s vs. '80s voices. Lower sounding voice. Lower tone. He may be able to hit the same notes but they sound different. ===========
Completely agree. Can't dispute that.
jpf · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: jpf wrote: Gregsynth wrote: Funny thing, is that Paul Stanley's voice actually is better now, than when Kiss was in their prime.
----
Actually Paul's having vocal issues now and has been for the past few years. I'll guess nodes. The guy just turned 59, too.
IMO Paul's best vocals were from "Hot In The Shade" through "Carnival Of Souls". I noticed a change in his voice after he did "Phantom Of The Opera". 6 shows a week for two long runs (he was asked back to close out the run in Toronto).
BTW, what do you consider to be KISS' prime? =======
1974-1979 for me. ----
Prime in popularity?
Prime in Paul's vocal performance?
Prime in song writing?
Prime in record/concert sales?
=============
Not too big on Kiss to be honest, but the 1974-1979 period has always been my favorite. It's got all the classic tracks that I know. For Popularity, I think 1974-1979 was their "classic" period, and the second wave came in 1983 (Lick It Up), then since the mid-90s, they've been in their "third wave."
For vocal performances, I'd say the 80s-up to the later 90s had Stanley at his best. You're right, his voice does have issues nowadays--but I've heard him sound worse at times during the 70s.
I think the songwriting was at its best during the 70s era (then again, I don't know too much about the band), and for the record sales it's gotta be 1976-1979, 1982-1989, and 1999-onwards being the "peaks." For concert sales, I think 1975-1978 was their peak in the US (I heard they played to huge crowds in the US in that era), but in later years, their commercial success was greater outside the US. ----
They had more eras (or waves) due to lineup changes. Then there were stylistic changes to consider.
Paul was a very good singer in the '70s. Sometime in the early '80s his range widened. He may have taken some vocal lessons. In 1999 he spent time with a vocal coach to prepare for "Phantom". His voice has been rougher, on and off, since 2004. It's not really that noticable while you're at the show, but the official live recordings tell it like it is. Youtube clips don't always tell the correct story, so I don't judge by them. From the more recent shows I've been to he was at his worst in 2004. He was better in 2009 and 2010, but not at his "Revenge"/"Unplugged" prime. He's rough on some of "Sonic Boom". This coming Monday they'll be meeting in the studio to begin work on their 20th studio cd. It will be interesting to hear what they come up with and how Paul's voice sounds. I'd rather hear imperfections rather than his voice being auto-tuned.
Record sales were up and down throughout their career, just like most long running bands.
'74 - weak sales '75 - "Alive" went through the roof '76 through '79 - very good sales '80 through '82 - very weak sales '83 - sales started to improve with "Lick It Up" '84 through '88 - sales were good '89 through '98 - sales were o.k. '99 through current - The only studio release was "Sonic Boom". Wasn't a big seller, but compared to the majority of long running bands still putting out music, the cd did well. Well enough to warrant recording a new studio cd.
Overall, in the U.S. the majority of KISS' lps have gone gold (500,000 units sold) and platinum (1 million units sold). They're around 40 million units sold in the U.S. and 60 million units sold internationally for a total of 100 million units sold.
Concert ticket sales were up and down, too.
'74 - gathering a following '75 - started to headline in a few U.S. cities '76 through '78 - massive success in the U.S.; toured in the U.K./Europe and Japan (twice) '79 - sales still good, but not as massive '80 - record didn't do so well in the U.S., so no U.S. tour (only a single U.S. show as a warm up show for the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand tours) '81 - record bombed; did not tour in support of it '82 - record didn't do so well; the same goes for the tour with the exception of a very successful tour in Brazil. '83 - off came the makeup; record did better; about the same tickets sales as the previous year '84 through '88 - concert sales ranged from very good to o.k. '90 - long, successful U.S. tour '92 - U.S. club tour sold out; arena tour wasn't successful in the U.S.; did well in the U.K. '93 through '95 - not much touring; successful South America and Japan tours; very successful acoustic tour in Australia and the U.S. '96 through '97 - their most successful tour '98 - didn't reach the heights of the previous tour '00 - tour did well '03 - co-headlining with Aerosmith did well '04 - good ticket sales in some places, poor in others '08 through current - doing very well in North America, South America, the U.K./Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan =======
Excellent analysis. Thank you. ---
You're welcome.
Jimmy Dean · Member since
Kiss=shiT
john bodega · Member since
"If that's what you focused on then you missed the message."
It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band.
"White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon.
jpf · Member since
Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message."
It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band.
"White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon.
---
Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to.
It is difficult going to Brian's website these days.
Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American.
Queen "White Man"
Elton John "Indian Sunset"
Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills"
It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria.
Holly2003 · Member since
jpf wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: "If that's what you focused on then you missed the message."
It's a concert. The message should never leave the music in the back seat. I'll use someone you hate as an example - John Lennon. He did Imagine, which was musically competent and had lyrics that fit the thing. Then he wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and got so hung up on the message of the song that he wound up with awful lyrics that don't scan well at all. It's all over the place. Granted, you probably don't know either song, but this works for any band.
"White Man", it's a Queen song that gets a bit of shit on this forum (for some reason) but the lyrics are bloody brilliant. Then you take "We Believe" - for some reason, 30 years later, Brian forgot how to write lyrics that fit into his own songs. Laden with shitty rhymes and words that just don't have any business in popular music. Keep it on the Soapbox, I reckon.
---
Of course I know "Imagine". I don't know the other song and wouldn't want to.
It is difficult going to Brian's website these days.
Being from the U.S. I find it odd when British artists write about things American.
Queen "White Man"
Elton John "Indian Sunset"
Iron Maiden "Run To The Hills"
It would be like Aerosmith writing songs about Queen Victoria. ================================================================
This proves it: you are dumber than Dumb Daniel McDumb, winner of last year's "World's Dumbest Dimwit" award.
brENsKi · Member since
jpf can you answer two questions please:
1. why is it odd for british musicians to write about american history?....(we were there first, the pilgrims met the native american's...and key to all of this...many "modern" americans are of british, italian, irish, french, swedish, chinese descent....be interesting to hear what you think a proper american is
2. when did this thread change it's title..to.... Queen i vs Ledzep I vs Kiss I ? ...try and stay on topic
