AC/DC vs. KISS
 

I thought about this today. I am a huge KISS fan, though I have no delusions that they were great songwriters or great musicians. They were ok, and at times, pretty good. But only to a real KISS fan. Anyone on the outside only saw the flash and no substance view. Which is fair enough. They were a lot of flash, more than ayone else ever dared to do. But they had a lot of songs that were pretty good that no one ever heard unless they bought KISS albums.

Anyway, I was thinking about it today, and AC/DC was playing, and I thought...how different are these two bands, really? So, I started comparing them to see what the similarities and differences are.

They both play pretty basic, major chord rock songs. They both had a gimmick. Of course, KISS was far and away more over the top than Angus' school boy get up.

So, here is my assessment of the two:

Lead Guitar: Clearly, Angus Young has it all over Ace Frehley.

Rhythm Guitar: I couldn't really come to a conclusion on this one. I would have to give the nod to Pual Stanley over Malcom Young, simply because Paul Stanley plays some lead guitar here and there. What that has to do with rhythm guitar, I don't know.

Bass: Gene Simmons over Cliff Williams, easily. Whether you like the guy or not, if you listen to KISS, you will hear, Gene's bass has a roaming, melodic kind of funk to it, while Cliff's bassline rarely strays far from the bass note of the chord being played.

Drums: Peter Criss, while average at best, does get some interesting things going every once in a while, while Phil Rudd, like Cliff Williams, doesn't stray at all. I don't recall so much as a drum roll from Phil Rudd. Edge to Criss.

Vocals: Gene grunts and growls his way through most of his songs, Brian Johnson is kind of screechy, and I always thought he sang from his throat, not down in his daiphram. Paul Stanley easily has the best voice of the three, but Ace Frehley, when he sings, is so awful, he detracts points. I don't really have a clear decision here.

Songwriting: Hmmm...neither are great, but I give the edge to AC/DC, simply because they can write about things other than woman. LOL.

So, I guess, overall, individually, KISS has the edge, but as a band, I'd say AC/DC is taken more seriously.

Any thoughts?

AC/DC had Bon Scott (How on EARTH did you miss him out of your vocalist and songwriting sections)

AC/DC get my vote purely on that basis.

Oh, I didn't miss it, I just didn't want to start getting in to this whole different line-up thing.

Bon Scott is one of my favourite lyricists for the simple reason in the hands of someone else they could sound horribly cliched but he injects his sense of humour into every song.Listening to his lyrics you really get a feel for the type of guy he was.

If you compare AC/DC`s first 5 albums with their 80s & 90s material you`ll see just how poor Brian Johnson is in comparison.

I like both bands, but I've always preferred AC/DC.

Apparently Bon Scott picked him out. still, Bon kicks ass over Brian.

Bon Scott was dead......

I agree with Urban about Bob being the superior vocalist/lyricist... Though ironically enough, Back In Black is still my favorite.

AC/DC for me... Don't give a crap about Kiss, really, i liked Love Gun, but thats it.

The story goes, Bon scott saw him and said something like, That guy would be a great frontman for this band. So when he died, the band sought him out.

Bon Scott wrote most of the lyrics for that anyway.

Oh yeah i forgot. :laughing:

Have you heard the alternate version of Back In Black (the song) with Bon Scott?... I could send it to you if you like.

Hate both of those bands but I guess if I were to give them a listen I would prefer KISS more

AC/DC>Kiss
IMO

Wel, I wasn't really looking for a 'who's better' type of thread when I created this. I was just making a comparison between the two. They are very similar in structure, and styles. Straight up, 3-4 chord rock songs, not very difficult to play. Both with gimmicks.

I was just curious as to why AC/DC alsways got so much more respect than KISS. When comparing the two, musician by musician, KISS has the upper hand, yet they are constantly bashed as a bad band. Angus Young is clearly a great guitarist, but other than that, anyone could play in AC/DC. That's not bashing them, eother. I'm saying, if you know all the major chords, you can play 99% of AC/DC's tunes. Same with bass and drums. If you know the basics, you could play for AC/DC. Again, I am not bashing them, but their music is very, very basic stuff.

Would it have been any different if the entire band wore school boy outfits? Would they be bashed as all flash and no substance, the way KISS is? I've seen both in concert, and while all eyes are on Angus, at a KISS show, you can't look at everything at once. It's a spectacle.

Personally, I'd rather see KISS, with an entire show going on, than some guys out the today, in flannel shirts and stringy hair, staring at their shoes while they play their songs. Don't just play the songs, entertain me.

Well, Kiss never wrote real catchy songs imo. I mean I've never found myself thinking a Kiss song was decent. AC DC did along with radio air play. Which helps their popularity. Kiss to me seems to as a mere gimmick band with nothing to back it up. All I hear is how their live shows are so awesome but I'm like so the music is bland.

That's true enough, to anyone who doesn't own any KISS, and only knows what they hear on the radio. I know it's fruitless to try and convince anyone who already has an opinion that KISS, while no great shakes, aren't all that bad. There's no way you can convince someone to invest in a cd of a band they've already decided they don't like.

However, if someone were to ask me where to start with KISS, I would suggest Dressed To Kill.

BTW, Swim, this post isn't directed at you, it's just a general statement.

I`d probably have more respect for Kiss if they didn`t follow fashion trends so much.For example disco/pop in the late 70s , hair metal in the 80s , aggressive hard rock in the early 90s.

AC/DC . while it`s true that their music hardly changes they`re one of the few bands IMO that can get away with it because they do it so much better than anyone else.

Kiss to me were just another cock rock band among many bands of the same sort , just with a good gimmick to give them attention.But I can`t think of a single band who do blues rock/12 bar boogie better than AC/DC

I concur.

Another spin on things.

AC/DC I think are the less cheesy of the two, thus earning them more respect right from the word go. You feel like AC/DC are authentic rock musicians, while Kiss you don't know how seriously to take them. Think about Lordi, that Eurovision band whatever, they make some pretty good music but I know I'd take them far more seriously if it was just them and the music, and not popular because of their novel get-ups.

So since Kiss was so big on image and spectacle, I think it is important to note how AC/DC have them beat by just looking like authentic rock musicians.

It's like asking who you'd rather be seen with, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? 4 guys in nice dainty wee suits with lovely combed hair, or a bunch of guys that looked like your rough and tumble, best mates?

I'd pick they guys I could relate to best, the guys that looked like your mates.

Meh, not really, Angus and Malcolm are definetely better gutarists than Ace and Paul... Who often need assistance of session musicians to play more complex musical parts.... In vocal terms, Scott was difinetely a better singer than Paul... Both Peter Criss and Phil Rudd are quite average drummers, but Phil at least provided a steady beat without going past his technical limit, which Criss often did, he could be rather sloppy live... Both have mediocre bassists, so no winner there. ;)

And anyone can play AC/DC?... I guess, anyone can play KISS too.

One reason i like AC/DC more is that they knew their limit as musicians, they played one style and stuck to it.... KISS however have made various feeble crossover attempts by trying to do everything from disco (Dynasty) to prog (Music From "The Elder").

AC/DC for sure. When i think of KISS i more so thnk purely about there image more so then there music. Although when it comes down to music AC/DC seems to have more emotion/feeling/meaning to there lyrics and music.

Paul Stanley has incredible range and power. He's very underrated. If you take the time to listen to Paul Stanley, you will see he is a gifted singer. I think you're wrong in this aspect.

I definitely know you're wrong here. LOL. Gene Simmons is an a**, no doubt about it, but he is a good bass player. Far better than Cliff Williams. Focus on the bassline of any KISS song, and do the same with AC/DC, and you will hear the difference.

Gene often mimics the guitar, which isn't all too hard when you think about it.

Not that Cliff is any better.

I'm basically saying AC/DC knew their limits as musicians, KISS did not.

I have listened to both bands for years, and own a huge collection of albums from both bands. If I had to choose one band from the two that I could listen to, it would be KISS. I have seen them in concert, and they put on a great show.

I'll dissect them musician wise:

Vocals - AC/DC > Kiss ... This is really subjective.

Guitar - AC/DC > Kiss ... I prefer the Young brothers to Kiss' guitarwork

Bass - Kiss > AC/DC ... Gene Simmons is a decent bassist, even if he is a money whore. At least, he's better than Cliff Williams.

Drums - Kiss > AC/DC ... AC/DC's drumming has always been rather plain and Phil Rudd is often known as the drummer who never played a fill. But he does the job expected for a minimalist rock band. But Peter Criss had some more interesting drumwork (check out the Carr Jam '81 on the Revenge album - it's not a bad drum solo).


Overall, I definitely prefer AC/DC and have never really liked Kiss much. Kiss has never really been about the music.

Neither Criss or Rudd are that great on drums, at least Rudd knows better than to do a solo.... Advantage = Rudd.

I almost hate to say this, because it's so obvious, but Eric Carr did Carr Jam, not Peter Criss.


and boo boo's just a KISS hater, so he'll always find a way to be against them. LOL.

I don't hate KISS by any means... In fact... There are probably only 20 or so bands that i can honestly say i hate.... Because i like most things... Like i said before... I think KISS are great in a "music to play when you're drunk at a frat party" kind of way.... I just don't find much to admire in their actual music, no personal agenda against them in any way.

^Said the guy who won't admit P.C. is a better drummer than P.R.

Technically??.. Shucks, i have never actually devoted my time to measuring the accuracy of their time meters and fills... So i can't honestly say i know who actually is better, can you?... Again neither are anything special, i never said Rudd was better, just that he has a certain advantage that helps AC/DCs case for being a better ensemble, this i already explained.

Oh, I agree. Phil Rudd fits perfectly in the band he's in. I believe I have stated in this forum somewhere that AC/DC is a band in which each member fits perfectly.

It doesn't take a degree to use your ears and listen and hear that Peter Criss is more talented. And don't take that to mean he's a great drummer. He's just better than Phil Rudd.

I disagree on that... Rudd's ridiculous simplicity could rival that of Meg White, but i have never heard him miss a beat, live or in studio... He plays his parts precisely and perfectly (like White), sure that may not be much of a challenge since they are all fairly easy parts to begin with, but his timing is great.... He has never played anything remotely impressive or technically hard.... But because he has never even attempted to do so, it may be because he lacks the ability to play fast, complex lines OR it could either be because he refuses to simplify his sound to suit the bands less is more style, thing is we don't realy know, for all we know the guy can play Rat Salad note for note.... AC/DCs rhythms and beats were always basic and subtle... With KISS, Criss would churn out big drum solos, sometimes he can do a decent solo and other times he would be very inept... He can do his simple drumlines just fine, but when he ventured out of his technical limit he could be a disaster, he often showed off at times when he didn't really have to, this may be hypocritical from a prog fan, but the primary lession here is don't show off if you have nothing to show off... Thats my problem with KISS... If they just stuck to simple songs all the time like AC/DC, that would be great... But too often they would try something that was beyond their league.... They could make some great pop rock albums (Destroyer, Love Gun) but they could also make some genuine crap (Dynasty, nearly everything from the 80s)... And way too many times they have alientated their fanbase by making way too many ill conceived crossover atempts (Disco, Prog, Soft Rock) that overall it really damaged their reputation as a solid hard rock band with a rebel image... But this is only my opinion after all, so you can just take it with a grain of salt, that would be best advised. :)

^ Free kewpie doll for anyone with a long enough attention span to read all this.

Yeah, I was wondering what "Carr" was referring to - I always thought that was Peter Criss.

Oh well, I'm not ashamed for being ignorant of Kiss' lineup changes :laughing:.

ACDC all the way. When Metal was almost dead by the late 70 and early 80 because Punk Rising and bon scott's and John Bonham death, and ozzy departure from black sabbath. Kiss could have been the only bad to keep Hard Rock or Heavy metal alive . And they pull out a ****ing Disco Album in 1979 WTF??? We had to wait untill Judas Priest To reinvent Heavy Metal and Lead the NWOBHM.

"Stained Class", "Hell Bent For Leather", "Bomber", "Overkill", "Van Halen", "Killers", "Iron Maiden", ...

Ring any bells?

Damn your too young you don't understand those albums were out but they weren't known. It took judas priest more then 10 years to gain it recognition and then dave murray and steve harris recognition came after Judas Priest. See that is why they are called the Metal Gods. The Band To Reinvent Metal. for a reason they call them that. WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S CALLED THE NEW WAVE OF BRITISH HEAVY METAL??

What?

Both Iron Maiden albums he mentioned went in the top 10 when they were released. their debut got as high as no 4.Also both Motorhead albums went top 20.They were known.

yes urban but Iron Maiden formed in 1975 they Didn't release their first album untill 1980 5 full year after the release physical graffity and two full years after never say die by black sabbath. That is why metal was being called dead . because of the Punk Invasion.
OO and Iron Maiden album never went gold they only made it on the uk charts and a domestic band.

Still proves your statement wrong

if you check from 1975 to 1981 nothing metal was known to the world.