Would Kiss have "made it" if not for their makeup and live show?
Among the criticisms from the people who hate/dislike Kiss that's postulated very often is the assertion that, given that much of the popularity of Kiss comes from their "live act" and in particular, their makeup and costumes, that they would've never reached the heights awarded to them if they were just a regular "rock band" in the seventies, some going so far as to say they never would've made it to being an international act!
If one is to believe this assertion, then one has to immediately go to their music and analyze them in the context of seventies hard rock and metal acts who were their contemporaries. Also, we need to look at the building blocks of their music, and the fact that this is a lot of what people (often) ignore.
Culled from interviews, various other sources, and the band from their autobiographies, the band's influences and the musical (non theatrical) stamp they were trying to create is passed over by people who concentrate on the gimmicks that the band utilizes.
The band, self admittedly, were a confluence of 4 major musical stylistic influences.
One, there was the influence of Stones influenced Garage Rock and Shock/Glam Rock bands ranging from New York Dolls to Alice Cooper.
Also, there is an influence of more basic rock bands coming from such bands as Free. This is reflected in many of the more basic songs on the first three albums, and also influenced the refinement of the other styles I will mention.
Thirdly, there was the traditional hard rock/early heavy metal influences like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple or Black Sabbath, bands that members like Paul Stanley or Ace Frehley especially mention.
The fourth influence on their music is something that is little mentioned and is an obscure one. The influence of early power pop on Paul Stanley cannot be underestimated. Bands like Big Star or The Raspberries feature heavily in his autobiography, and can be felt/heard in songs ranging from Strutter (even if some of it was a Simmons riff) to the songs on his first solo album or on Unmasked. Gene Simmons always cites the early Beatles as a huge influence on his music, and of course the power pop bands share this.
It's with the conjunction of these four major influences I am basing my hypothesis on, that contemporary and later critics, if not for the impression in their mind based on the "gimmicks" and stage show, that they would have been much more accepting of Kiss on their musical basis alone.
Also, I have another theory about the band that may be more tantalizing. And this theory is based upon the first three albums and Alive, because these albums were coming from a more purely musical basis, since much of the material was pre-makeup and even written or recorded by Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons with prior bands (such as Wicked Lester).
Subsequent albums like Destroyer were musically and lyrically influenced much of the time off of their stage show, whether consciously or not, and songs like God Of Thunder (even though originally written by Stanley, with a few lyrical and musical revisions became a signature track for Simmons) were prime examples of this.
If they never put on the makeup, Kiss may had gone in a different musical direction and may had even not done albums such as Dynasty, which caused a lot of consternation with their original fanbase.
They may had gone into complete musical directions than they did, and had been able to keep their reputation intact in the eyes of the public (and even much of the critics).
But what would've been their reputation, what heights would they have achieved from a historical perspective?
This is actually easier to answer than first assumed, because in my opinion, they would've still maintained a level of success, and (with the last analysis in mind) maybe even been more respected by critics later on.
Kiss were second or third generation Hard Rock/Heavy Metal- not quite in the second generation like bands such as Uriah Heep (though album wise Heep may belong to the first), but not quite seen in the same light as bands like Aerosmith, The Scorpions, Judas Priest, Thin Lizzy, or Motorhead were as far as trajectory time wise.
Based on musical merits, they would've maybe been seen in almost in the same category (As far as being second or third tier to the Led Zeppelins or Black Sabbaths of the world) as bands like Blue Oyster Cult, UFO or Grand Funk Railroad (Note: I am not talking about a subjective perspective of such bands, after all, I personally like bands like UFO better than Led Zeppelin, but more from a perspective of influence, reputation, and historical perspective), and musically, their reputation may had followed suit.
If not for the perception of Kiss, they may had, after all, gotten more deeply indebted to the nascent heavy metal genre, and gone off to a totally different path.
Conclusion: I will use a hypothetical alternate timeline to further demonstrate these ideas.
In the alternate timeline that I theorize, the one in which Kiss never puts on makeup or has quite the same live show, the band still releases Alive, and their success still happens. I use Alive as a starting point, because the album is both the culmination of their early albums, but also a benchmark as far as playing and performance goes. It's heavier and more intense interpretations of the songs were what initially brought the band chart success, and this is an important point to be made (as well as using it as the point of departure).
Since they are less of a spectacle, they may had acted on entirely different impulses when it came to their music. They may had even become heavier earlier on (doing a Creatures of the Night style album during the time the NWOBHM was rising in popularity), or followed a different musical path entirely.
In their subsequent career trajectory, their respect and place in history among the public is somewhere in betwen a band like Blue Oyster Cult and Aerosmith.
They still have a cult-like status about them, but people focus more on their musical accomplishments more than the "novelty" of the stage show, makeup, and personas.
Alive is still listed by bands and musicians as something that influenced them during their starting foray in music, though not to the level that in OUR timeline/reality is because of less attention given to it overall (because of the live show spectacle).
They would be loved and respect and maybe even hated for entirely different reasons.
Since they wouldn't be seen as pompous or pretentious, outlets like Rolling Stone magazine may had even seen them as a missing link between the New York Dolls, 70's Heavy Metal, and (even) Punk Rock (since it shared a lot of the Garage Rock roots) and even gained their respect, even if not so much lyrically (though maybe some would see it as satire or befitting of working class affectations) since they would focus more on the music rather than (their perceived) cynical motivations.
Who knows, they may even had toured with acts like the Ramones, rather than just Black Sabbath or others.
Critics would be softer on them as a result, and this may even had helped their success and not hindered it among those said critics (and helped with their success in general).
Overall, Kiss is listened to, not watched. People like the music because of timeless songs, not Gene Simmons' makeup. If they had never put the makeup on or done as much pyro in the first place, albums such as Alive would probably still be highly regarded. They would follow a different path more than likely, with all the pitfalls that a successful seventies band faced. Their music may have turned out quite different, but they nevertheless would have been a success for writing timeless songs.
Comments