A while back, I penned a post about the seeming incongruity of AC/DC getting into bed with Walmart. It struck me as odd that a band renowned for such lascivious sing-alongs as "What Do You Do For Money, Honey?", "Sink the Pink" and "Big Balls" would be deemed fit for wholesome family-consumption by the imperiously puritanical big box retail outlet. But, I guess the band's reputation as a sound investment overshadowed their penchant for the puerile and priapic. This week, I spotted a story which prompted a similar response.
At this stage of the proceedings, there are a million reasons to be disappointed by Kiss, from their tireless merchandising through their dishonest insistence on carrying on with imposters in Ace & Peter's respective guises. Hopes for the band to gracefully bow out with storied legacy intact were dashed on the rocks decades ago. Lambasting Gene Simmons for selling the soul of the endeavor at every conceivable opportunity is like scolding a kangaroo for hopping; it's just what he does. It's his nature. He can't help it.
That all said, there have been several occasions wherein I've been tempted to go AWOL from the Kiss Army and become a conscientious objector. That Pepsi ad. The coffee shop. The proposed Broadway musical. That cringe-inducing Olympics performance. The televised facelift. The Dr. Pepper ad. The appearance on 'American Idol' (oh good lord, that was rough). The list is endless (although I will always love Ace Frehley's spot for Dunkin' Donuts). They just don't make it easy to be a Kiss fan with any semblance of dignity these days.
The band's always had its detractors. Jann Wenner to this day refuses to put them anywhere near the cover of Rolling Stone (yeah, like that means anything anymore). They're pooh-poohed for being all spectacle and no substance. They've been accused of ripping off their gimmicky shtick from Alice Cooper and The New York Dolls. Fair enough. I love both of those bands as well (and yes, Alice Cooper is a band, not just one guy), but perhaps if the `Dolls spent less time doin' smack and more time writing better tunes, they'd have scaled greater heights. For my money -- love'em or hate'em -- Kiss were (note: past tense) a better band than the New York Dolls. I realize this assertion will incur the same sort of wrath I received for taking potshots at Patti Smith, but boo hoo. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Anyway, the story that gave me (further) pause this week was the report that Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley are currently developing a Kiss-themed children's television show. Again, I'm not sure why this surprises me this late in the day, but once upon a time (i.e. circa their first three studio albums), Kiss was all about libidinous depravity and rebellion. They played loud, aggressive rock and dressed like leather-clad, Kabuki-slathered super-villains. When I was a nascent Kiss fan in the mid 70's, Kiss singularly embodied everything that my parents vehemently abhorred, which – of course – made them THE PERFECT BAND. They were designed to terrify your parents. This is the band that wrote paeans to adventurous sex ("Nothin' to Lose"), booze ("Cold Gin") and jailbait ("Christine Sixteen"). They asked to put the "X" in sex and implored you to "lick it up!" FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, THEY TITLED THEIR SIXTH STUDIO ALBUM LOVE GUN! (a record upon which they included a ditty about the infamous penis-molding groupie phenomenon of plaster-casting). My belabored point here is that Kiss at their best were pointedly not safe for the whole family. And that's exactly how it was meant to be.
I'm being unrealistic, revisionist and naïve, I suppose. Lord knows I was still watching Saturday morning cartoons when I first started getting into Kiss, so maybe it was always in the cards. Still, it just doesn't seem right, does it?
Recent Comments