Originally Posted by foofighters7 (Post 10403881)

I love to see KISS fans stand up for the band and fight to make people think they were great. It's so cute.

Originally Posted by brianluvdvd (Post 10403961)

I've said it before, Bon Jovi is the 80's version of Nickleback. American pleasing poppy rock hits that all sound similar with little substance. I don't care if they get in the Hall Of Fame but there are plenty of other bands who deserve the recognition before them.

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 10403876)

So I'm talking substance and you're being condescending. Nice.

-rolleyes-

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 10403835)

I just find it hilarious how people criticize KISS' songwriting, while lauding AC/DC or the Rolling Stones. There is nothing substantially different between them (except that KISS has a better sense of melody and harmonies than AC/DC).

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 10404563)

The idea of a pissing match over who writes the more complicated songs between the Stones and KISS is laughable. Neither band writes complicated songs. Four or five chords at the most, maybe a key change for the bridge or modulating up a step for a final verse, and that's about it.

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 10403835)

Well, KISS right now is averaging about 12,000 per show. For a band 37 years into their career that's remarkable. That certainly isn't a joke.

Gene's ego is partly for show (a character, more or less), partly real. Both the character and the real ego are annoying, no question. Paul Stanley is a legit Rock and Roller and a genuine musical artist. If Gene is about business first, Paul is about the music first (which is why Paul's in charge of the band now, and Gene goes along with his decisions).

I just find it hilarious how people criticize KISS' songwriting, while lauding AC/DC or the Rolling Stones. There is nothing substantially different between them (except that KISS has a better sense of melody and harmonies than AC/DC).

I mean, structurally and melodically, is there really any significant difference between these songs?


You may like the Stones songs more, but there isn't any real difference in their songs to KISS' songs structurally. They aren't any more sophisticated or complicated, so it really just comes down to personal preference and taste.

Originally Posted by cungar (Post 10399737)

Yes really. The J. Geils Band was one of the most popular touring rock bands in America during the '70s. I saw them several times and their shows were just on par with the E-street band in their prime. The fact that most people only know them by their hits may make them seem trivial but they were a great R&B based rock band.

Originally Posted by statcat (Post 10399790)

Donovan was a surprise to me in a good way. I think he deserves to be in there with other singer/songwriters of his time period like Cat Stevens.

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 10404818)

Why do people grant any kind of legitimacy or importance to the RRHoF anyhow? Take it for what it is: another reason for douchetastic Baby Boomers to circle jerk themselves into annual seizures of self-importance.

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 10399800)

If Donovan gets in then Thin Lizzy and UFO deserve to get in.

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 10404563)

The idea of a pissing match over who writes the more complicated songs between the Stones and KISS is laughable. Neither band writes complicated songs. Four or five chords at the most, maybe a key change for the bridge or modulating up a step for a final verse, and that's about it.

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 10405074)

I think you need to read up on your rock and roll history.

Originally Posted by cungar (Post 10406892)

Donovan was a psychadelic English Dylan wannabe with about 1/1000th the talent. He was at the right place at the right time when folksingers were all the rage and everyone was too high to notice how untalented he was. Anyone ever see the scene in Don't Look Back when Donavan plays some lame song in front of Dylan and his friends in a hotel room? Dylan proceeds to completely destroy him with a scathing version of It's All Over Now Baby Blue. THe look on Donovan's face is priceless.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10407088)

Now you can watch Kiss not get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on your very own Kiss TV:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/02/k...iew-pauls-sta/

Originally Posted by Coral (Post 10407169)

That right there pretty much sums up what KISS was all about... marketing and merchandising.

Originally Posted by statcat (Post 10407045)

you didn't even spell psychedelic right. Donovan released some of the earliest psychedelic recordings. Sunshine Superman was recorded in '65- he was far from just some bandwagon follower. Also his version of Hey Gyp features a line about buying a sugarcube in '65- pretty early references to acid. He has far more talent than a lot of people in the rock n roll hall of fame and I think he was his own musician, not just some Dylan ripoff act.

It doesn't surprise me to see people bitching about donovan. The same stuff happened when the hollies got in. 60s acts get little to no respect aside from the Beatles, Rolling Stones (even then their 60s stuff is ignored for the 70s), and a few others.