KISS 2023 Goodbye
Reflecting on the legacy, influence, and controversy of KISS during their final IRL performances forever (supposedly) vs. 1975's Alive!
Trigger Warning: this piece mentions anti-trans remarks made by a band member of KISS and discusses other problematic artists.
You wanted the best . . . .
Just as every KISS concert begins with those famous words, so begins the end of my relationship with this band. On November 4th, 2023, I witnessed the four current members of KISS - Paul Stanley (Starchild), Gene Simmons (the Demon), Tommy Thayer (The Spaceman), & Eric Singer (The Cat) - perform their first(!) show ever at the Hollywood Bowl and their final show ever in Los Angeles. I know it’s a bit of boy-crying-wolf since KISS have seemingly been on their Farewell Tour for YEARS. After all, I saw them for my first time in 2019 on the End of The World Tour - which is the same tour they just finished in December 2023. This time, though, the farewell feels real. It also feels about time.
With 2023 ending this week, I’m in my feelings about a lot of things and was reflecting on the legacy of this Boomer / Gen X band, what their future holds, and my relationship with their music. There’s no better way to start those musings than going back to the beginning, which for me, started in 2017. Until then, I never really “got” KISS. I had heard the hit songs, watched that film Detroit Rock City, and seen all the marketing merch (and parodies). But being a KISS fan? It wasn’t in my cards until my former roommate opened my eyes to their live shows on YouTube one Thanksgiving weekend. I’ll be honest - it made a huge impact on me for the sheer “rock ‘n roll-ness” of it all: the performances! the showmanship! the pyrotechnics! I had never seen anything so spectacular. I knew from just seeing their performances on YouTube that I had to see them live one day. First, though, I had to start collecting their albums on vinyl.
You got the best . . .
It’s worth noting that KISS are not the greatest musicians. I recall the “controversy” that stemmed from their 2014 induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I won’t use this space to go into all the things that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has gotten wrong over the years (but let’s be real - they have gotten A LOT wrong i.e. racism, sexism, ballot fixing, criteria, etc.), but I will concur that KISS wouldn’t have been inducted if the criteria was based on talent alone. For me, KISS and their entire legacy is not just about the music but the full package: the make-up and mythology, the album cover artwork, the marketing and PR stunts, and of course - the theatricality of the live show. That’s why their best album ever is 1975’s Alive!, a live recording of the KISS concert experience that finally brought them into the mainstream.
“Before Alive!, KISS had some great songs. In fact, all of the blood and fire of Alive! came from songs on the band’s first three albums, KISS, Hotter Than Hell and Dressed to Kill. But when listened to out of the context of the three-dimensional live KISS experience, those albums failed to capture the larger-than-life spirit the band conveyed in concert” (Loudwire).
It’s a stunner from start to finish, especially when you listen it on vinyl. The live experience is the full realization of the band at their best, which you can hear so perfectly replicated on Alive! and its sequels Alive II, Alive III, and my personal favorite Symphony: Alive IV.
While the Starchild himself Paul Stanley has admitted to taking certain liberties with the live elements like inputting more audience cheering and pyrotechnic sounds, I don’t think it takes away from enjoying the album; I think as he states, it enhances it, just like all the theatricality of the live shows. (I do recognize and understand the other side of the argument in that the theatricality distracts from the lackluster music, too). In his autobiography Face the Music, Paul Stanley details the early days of the band, particularly one consequential show where the drummer at the time (I can’t recall if it was Peter Criss or another person) yelled out hello and thanks to some friends in the audience during the performance. After the show, Stanley admonished the drummer, saying that they wouldn’t become the biggest band in the world if they acted like they were playing for just friends and family. You gotta fake it ‘til you make it, right? Since their first three albums didn’t catch fire, they had to create an album that captured their fiery performances. Alive! was their second chance at getting it right.
The hottest band on Earth . . .
Right after the release of Alive!, KISS was EVERYWHERE. Stanley and Simmons personally made sure of that through relentless marketing and merchandising. As a marketer myself, I can humbly say that Simmons and Stanley are some of the best and most shameless marketing directors. Producing a live album to encourage ticket sales to live shows? Genius. Never being seen without make-up in public to build up their mythological image? Brilliant. Taking off the make-up as a PR hook to usher them into the 80s? That stunt gave their career a full resurgence and solidified their existence for another twenty years. In between all that came comic books, movie and TV appearances, toys, lunch boxes, and even a pinball machine!
Such larger-than-life presence builds a cult following for those seeking something bigger than themselves. The KISS Army is an insane testament to the influence and legacy that this band leaves behind. I’ve been to the Hollywood Bowl over 100 times in my lifespan, and I had never seen the Bowl the way it came alive last November. Fans everywhere donned imitation make-up and pounded beers in the walkway. Colossal statues of the The Demon, The Starchild, The Space Man, and The Cat flanked either side of the iconic Hollywood Bowl arch.
KISS?
This past May, front man Paul Stanley for some reason decided that his voice needed to be heard on the subject of Transgender healthcare. What he posted was misguided, uninformed, and flat-out anti-trans. A few days later, he came out with an “explanation” post (no apology) stating that “while his thoughts were clear, his words clearly were not” and he hadn’t been able to fully articulate what he was trying to say. He left it at that. The most glaring aspect of his unnecessary opinion? The total hypocrisy of his words because it came from him.
“To be clear, this is the guy who co-founded a band that is most famous for performing in over-the-top black-and-white face makeup, long wigs, and studded leather ensembles. One might even say they dress in a rather drag-like manner” (Them).
In good conscience, it’s hard for me to support any artist that has disparaged or harmed a minority groups in any way. Words have power, and what Stanley said was dangerous and wrong. This leads to one of the most recent questions debated in the wake of #MeToo: how do we reconcile the music that we love with the problematic people that our favorite artists actually are? Do we choose the performance over reality? This latter question is especially ironic given that it’s been KISS’ entire thesis. There are artists I don’t support anymore because of the intentional harm and purposeful malice that they have put out into the world, specifically R. Kelly, Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, and Kanye West. Yet, there are other artists who I have struggled to reconcile and reckon with like David Bowie, John Lennon, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and even my childhood favorite band of all-time Weezer.
To be clear, Stanley’s comments were made on his personal Instagram and did not come from the full band. However, it has permanently “stained” my perception and experience of the band and their music as a whole. Author Claire Dederer wrote a book entitled Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma in which she discusses and debates the core emotional problem fans have in instances like this (which are far too often):
“These artists did or said something awful, and had made something great. The awful thing disrupts the great work; we can’t watch, or listen to, or read the great work without remembering the awful thing. Flooded with knowledge of the maker’s monstrousness, we turn away, overcome by disgust. Or … we don’t. We continue watching, separating or trying to separate the artist from the art” (The Guardian).
Her excerpt continues to detail the idea of the “stain”, something that tarnishes, seeps in, languishes, and remains on us in relation to an artist. Some stains are so monstrous that it makes dismissing an artist like Michael Jackson easier. However, Dederer is not representative of all people, and I happen to know of and know personally some people that still hold the King of Pop in high esteem because of his forward-thinking music or breaking of barriers for Black artists. Like many relationships we have with other artists, there is complexity, nuance, and reckoning - with them and with ourselves. Ultimately, I believe that it is imperative to question, investigate, and re-evaluate relationship with artists constantly, especially in light of news. How you then move forward with your relationship with an artist is your own prerogative. This is where I currently sit in my relationship with KISS: questioning, investigating, re-evaluating, and yes, even struggling to separate the art from the artist, and discerning if that’s even a right option.
A new era begins . . .
I’d be remiss to not mention that loving KISS has brought me so much joy in my life and played a big role in my most recent formative period of my life. That’s why I continue to feel complex emotions about the decision I made to still attend to the farewell LA show. Knowing full well that this was also the last time I would see them again live, it felt like the right time for me to say goodbye to this nearly 50-year old band that has brought me joy. Knowing full well that Stanley had made disparaging remark about a community under attack makes me feel guilty for having gone.
Of course, being the ultimate marketing machine that they are, KISS announced that they had created digital avatars of themselves akin to those ABBA holograms so that they can perform on tour fooooorrrrreeeeevvvverrrr. It’s actually a brilliant idea and makes sense coming from a band that has sold their image for profit for decades now. But maybe it’s also time that KISS actually say goodbye and give space to other artists, and fans, to be better than them, musically and morally.
In the announcement video above, Stanley states that the band KISS is bigger than them as individuals, and it’s owned by the fans. If this idea is to be true, then as us fans, while we do the important work of investigating and re-evaluating our relationships with artists that say and do problematic things, we can also call out our musical heroes when we have to and hold them accountable. In these moments too, we should hold ourselves accountable and call each other out to do better and be better than our idols. I am doing this with myself and will continue to do so.
In my new era with KISS, whether it’s in relation with them or not, I as a fan am calling them out: don’t be anti-trans and don’t be an asshole. It’s tarnished your legacy, KISS. We deserve the best, and we expect the best from “the hottest band on Earth.”
Final 2023 Recommendations
25 Gifts for the Record Collector in Your Life (because why does gift-giving only have to happen during the holidays?)
Best Substack Finds of 2023:
- and her Album A Day (lots of Fania breakdowns!)
- (a daily dose of soul/funk/jazz features)
- (rock and roll history from a queer lens)
- the tune-tag man himself!
On Repeat by
(hot takes on cool records)- (author featured in my Roy Ayers article)
- (exploring a life of creativity and curiosity)
- (musical musings on electronic, shoegaze, underground, and more)
Best Show of 2023: The Great British Baking Show, Collection 11 (honestly, this was a goddamn delight and a true nail-biter up to the finale!)
Best Podcast of 2023: BANDSPLAIN hosted by
(no explanation necessary)Best Album of 2023: Olivia Rodrigo’s GUTS (I don’t listen to much new music, but this album captured my attention for its perfect songwriting)
That’s it for this issue of First Pressing. Thanks for sticking around, and hope to see you in 2024!
Kadrian
 | A guest post by
|
Great post, Kadrian! Thanks for mentioning my growing Substack in your recommendations. It has been wonderful to read your work and connect. In regards to navigating our relationship as listeners to artists who are problematic. It is always a worth while conversation to have and there isn't a simple answer. Opinions will differ from listener to listener and I do think it is easier to cut out particular artists based on what their actions or statements were and what type of relationship is had with their music. What I do find interesting are the artists you mentioned you no longer engage with because of purposeful malice ( R. Kelly, Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, and Kanye West) versus who you’re struggling with (David Bowie, John Lennon, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Weezer). Though I agree that everyone in the first group have larger “stains” as Dederer puts it, I would also point out the level of scrutiny Black artists are consistently met with and how public any negative action is. Whereas someone like John Lennon can create a “stain” that is only spoken about in hushed tones until his death and very rarely brought up in the telling of his story. You can’t address the first group of names with out their stains coming up, they are forever synonymous with those actions, where the second group are still musicians first. I’m interested in how our unconscious bias may play into our ability to cut the cord. Someone I’m constantly thinking about is Willie Colon, he’s so integral to salsa, but has said such awful things. Would love to know if you have any thoughts on this.
Not surprised by Paul Stanley's problematic and transphobic comment as the lyrics to many songs by Kiss were also deeply misogynistic. That said, A LOT of music is, and Kiss are by no means alone when it comes to toxic masculinity, sexism and misogyny. The bigger question you raise of separating the art from the artist is a fantastic conversation that everybody needs to have with themselves. Especially as we all consume so much and with that consumption comes the real possibility of directly and indirectly supporting and enabling reprehensible behaviors. Same with sport and film stars. Can one separate the team from the player, or the film from the actor? The Cleveland Browns showering Deshaun Watson with millions of dollars to be the face of their franchise, Kobe Bryant and his now legendary status, Johnny Depp and Kevin Spacey all come to mind. In the end, everybody has to make up their own mind and decide where they morally stand. It's good food for thought and well done on your essay. Oh, and Claire Dederer's book is a fantastic read!