Ya know, as a KISS fan, I have known about this for years.... and ya know what? I still LOVE this ALBUM, so all I have to say is if you love it, who really cares? NOT ME!
Believe it or not, I'm a Kiss fan. I just don't think THIS album is very good, but I agree (and say this in the video) that Kiss Alive! is an important album overall.
The members of KISS never claimed it was a “live” album. It is called Alive! because it brought their music to the level that fans expected that the studio albums couldn’t. And all the songs are great.
As a 12 yr old kid like most of us here back then, this was great. We know its not totally live by now. Yet we still cant get that "first time listen" memory out of our minds and never will! Do i care its been cleaned up?? NOPE, its still my favorite KISS era album '74-'78!
Exactly. Take a look right after ALIVE, how many bands jumped on the live album bandwagon. Rush Peter Frampton Foghat Ted Nugent Lynyrd Skynyrd (Off the top of my head)
Agree that KISS Alive was the break through live album for so many other bands to release live albums at a time period from 76-80. Aerosmith live bootleg 78 Cheap Trick live at budokan and Angel - live with without A Net is a very underated and excellent live album from KISS Casablanca label Mates
We already know that it is not a live album perse. But somehow they had to capture the essence of how they actually did it and not how they sound on the first 3 albums. Likewise, there are videos of concerts from that tour and the audios are very close to what they transmitted on the album.
_Per se_ is two words, and should be italicized, if the rest of your sentence isn't in Latin. It shouldn't be used at the end of a sentence, in most phrasings, as it means "that is to say." It should be followed by what you mean to say, as in: "We all know that _Alive_ isn't a live album, _per se,_ it's a live album with significant studio overdubbing."
I understand it is your opinion, but not sure how you can say songs like Deuce, Strutter, Cold Gin, Parasite not great. Most people consider them classics.
Wrong. Are you a Kiss fan, and/or do you really know their history? Kiss had three albums of material to work with, all of which were very raw-and not polished like Destroyer. The raw unpolished nature of the songs is what attracted many early fans. Everyone also knows the story of the actual sound, recording, and engineering-so what is the use of rehashing this? Paul’s banter? Sure, for today’s standards-the banter is tiring. But, in 1974/1975, you did not have bands interacting like this with the audience. Are you entitled to your opinion? Yes-absolutely. But for this review, you really sound as if you don’t know the reason(s) for how and why the album was created, and you really don’t understand what attracted 50 years worth of fans to their music.
The shows were real. Recorded in new jersey. Peter criss' vocals and drums were all left intact. They fixed up mistakes in studio. All live albums were fixed up that way
Not just New Jersey. The cuts were not from one, single performance, but from several shows in various cities. However, you are correct that live albums were always doctored up to improve the quality of the final product. KISS was no different, they just arguably went to greater lengths.
I can no longer listen to kiss due to the overload factor combined with the things they've done leading up to the present...this coming from a guy that bought the originals and alive when they came out for $6 or $7 btw
Yes - THIS^^!! Gene and Paul have really tarnished the reputation and legacy of the band. They ALWAYS took everything too far and did not know when to pull back and to top it off, they are constantly lying or tooting their own horn too loudly, like they still have something to prove. It became a huge turn off.
It helped perk the sales of the first three and catapulted the live album for other artists,Blue Oyster Cult On your feet or on your knees and Some Enchanted Evening,Ted Nugent Double Live Gonzo, Frampton Comes Alive,KISS Alive 2, Lynyrd Skynyrd One more from the road,Cheap Trick at Budokan and many examples of inspiration.
Well, first of all it isn't really a live album. They inserted numerous audience sound effects and spliced in corrections to mistakes all over the place. But it was a milestone in many lives, good or not.
It wasn’t just kiss every live album in the seventies from Framton comes alive,to cheap trick at budikan (sorry for my spelling) they were all doubled with fans and the music was cleaned up even Judas Priest faked a live album
No, it really is a live album; they just doctored it up after the fact. But they started with raw, live tracks from actual performances. A fake live album would have been created entirely in the studio with 100% canned audience reaction. That isn't what Alive! was. The added audience sounds, tracked vocals, and instrumental cut-ins were enhancements to authentic live recordings.
@@BigBri550 Doctoring any live performance is NOT a live performance. So what they recorded two nights at Cobo Hall, if you go in a dub licks, vocals and drum tracks it's NOT live. Watch Skynyrd at Winterland 75, THAT is a live performance. Compare it to KISS 75 Winterland, that is LOUSY live performance.
@@JClaus1221 Unless every single track from the original live recording is erased in the process, doctoring a recording of a live performance does't change the fact that the base tracks were live.
I appreciate your opinion and thanks for sharing. As a massive KISS fan since 1975 myself, I definitely disagree with your reasoning. I rank this as my favorite KISS album ever and in my top 3 all-time favorite live albums (The Who Live at Leeds and Judas Priest Unleashed in the East are the other 2). I feel like this is the perfect representation of what a KISS show was like in 1975 and - for me - the material is incredible.
Doesn't matter if it was fake or not - it kicks ass the feel , the vibe and the emotion of the double LP makes you believe you are right there in the first 5 rows....The songs are fabulous as the 1st three KISS LP's are my favorite - to each is own. You are wrong in my opinion. But hey to each his own. God Bless!
That being said this album was a important Kiss moment for this 11 year old fan at the time the album cover alone had me cold. My first purchase was the Kiss Originals a 3 record set of their first 3 albums Love all those songs.
What? The songs kick ass! Zillions of people including me started playing musical instruments because that record RULES. It's one of the Top Ten Hard Rock records of all time. I'm 62 years old and I still enjoy that album as much as I did when 15. First time I heard it I loved it. I still do. I always will.
Kind of unfair to compare the Destroyer album to the Alive album. Destoryer was a conceptualized album create by producer Bob Ezrin. He did this album much in the same vein he did the Alice Cooper bands Billion Dollar Baby back in 73. That album sounded nothing like the Alice Cooper band albums prior to it. Same goes with Kiss. Had Bob not produced the Destoryer album it would of been something completely different. In fact, the Destroyer album sounds nothing like Kiss as its all studio magic. And that's one of the reasons why Kiss decided to go back to their roots with the Rock N Roll Over album to get back sounding like themselves. Is the Alive album a great album ? It's good for what it is and gives fans a taste of what the band sounds like live. The prior 3 albums before that plot around but contain no magic and they exact reason why they didn't sell very well. I don't know of any live album that hasn't been touched up in one way or another.? And if you listen closely you can hear a lot sometimes where they punched in a recording where something new was added to a existing live track to cover a fix in the recirding. Can say I'm a big Kiss fan but give them merit for this first live album. This was the album that made them popular and become a huge hit. Without it Kiss would of had a harder time gaining any traction . 😉
Ok, we get it. You’ve never been a Kiss fan. We know it’s not “absolutely live.” Paul’s stage banter is more amusing than anything. I don’t think he’d get away with “How many of you like the taste of alcohol?” today. As a kid, I found it amusing and I still do. But at least you acknowledged the album’s merit. And I agree, most of the songs are better here than on the original studio albums. That said, there are other live albums I like better. I’m not saying by who. I have to disagree with 3 studio albums isn’t enough to constitute a double live album. What about Yessongs by Yes? Only features songs from 3 albums and it’s a triple live album! Still, an interesting video. I gave it a thumbs up!
I appreciate it! By the way, I do call myself a Kiss fan. Seeing them live with the makeup on and the whole show was one of the best concerts I've ever seen. Just not a big fan of the first 3 (4) albums, I guess.
@@vynyly , I’m a fan up to the Dynasty era. I Was Made For Lovjng You turned me off a bit. When Peter Criss left, I knew they’d never be the same. And they weren’t. What do you think of Alive Two? I got that for Christmas when it came out. It’s also 3 albums worth of material on a double live album. However, only 3 sides with one side of new studio tracks. Oh yeah, and those temporary tattoos were a load of fun! Musically, Gene’s vocals were a little grating on God Of Thunder and Shout It Out Loud. He’s acting the songs more than singing the songs. Speaking of acting, at the end of Ace’s solo on Shock Me, Paul has to sing “Whoooooah, yeah-ah!” as if he were the singer on that song! Genesis put out Three Sides Live 5 years later. I guess they figured honesty was the best policy.
You just stick to "Rockin Out" to that Supertramp lp,Homie!! My sister played that record non stop untill I took a baseball bat to it!!! FYI, I dont think there was a live album in the 70s that wasn't doctored up a bit, thats just what they did to make it sound as best it could. I would bet your precious little Allman Brothers lp was polished a bit as well.
That "little Allman Brothers lp" was an all time classic, son. It was not fixed afterwards, just mixed fairly well. You can actually hear a few mistakes, but the band was so good, you have to listen hard to detect them. The Allman Brothers sloppy drunk would have still played better than KISS was capable even on their best night.
Don't think Im much younger than You "Son" hahaha!! But,Allman's are technically better by far,but who wants to hear em wank on the same song for 45 minutes,sitting on stools?!!? Snooze Fest,Son!! Gimmie ripped off Page and Richards leads and a loud Bombastic RnR Show anyday!!!
When I first got into KISS, I liked them cos of the music as I had bought love gun and destroyer, which were painted covers. When I knew they actually looked like this plus stage shows, that was the icing on the cake. Still love the music and prefer studio over live albums.
It's common knowledge that much of the album was reworked in the studio. Many live albums are. The songs that are included on the album are all classics, and are in top form. They sound the way that they were intended.
I was enjoying the video and agreeing with your points until it became obvious that you and my wife are working together, with the eventual goal of getting all the Kiss out of my house.
Exactly. Why is it when bands doctor their live recordings, that's considered cheating, but when they use every studio trick in the book to create a non-live recording, that's considered legit?!
This album is the soundtrack to my youth 6 years old running around singing got to choose! For me it’s top five all time rock albums and I don’t care about the details of how it was made irrelevant to me
5 reasons why KISS Alive! is a great album. #1 It re-energized the songs and took them to a new level. Longer jam sessions. New solos. Improving all many of the songs. #2 It's a great roller coaster ride from start to finish. From the explosions that start off Deuce, to the Peter telling the audience "good niiiiiiiiight!!!" It's one hec of a ride. #3 No filler songs. Every song works. Yeah it's not a "best of" their 40 year catalog, but that would be piece mailed and Frankensteined together. Here you get the show "as is", which adds to the concert feeling at the time. #4 Iconic. Thousands of musicians today cite KISS Alive! as a key album heard that got them to play their instrument. #5 It sold double platinum in its day. People love the album. That means it's good.
KISS and the New York Dolls were both 1974 extensions of the early 70's Glam movement that began with guys like David Bowie, Gary Glitter, Roxy Music, etc. You either absolutely loved KISS, or else you absolutely hated it.
The material is great. The production, in terms of how LOUD the recorded material plays, is abysmal (apologies to Eddie Kramer). You could turn the volume all the way up, and you're not even getting what would be 25% on any other album/cassette/CD/etc. The remastered version helps, but still falls short. Comparing the album to Destroyer is not fair as Bob Ezrin produced Destroyer. Apples and Oranges.
It’s not a great album, but that version of Rock & Roll All Night and Cold Gin (along with their costumes and theatrics) catapulted them into their status as icons.
All live albums are fixed up in the studio. Alive made all of the those songs Kiss classics over the years. I respect your opinions though. I actually like Alive 2 more. Better songs in my opinion.
Always preferred Alive II but could be my age when it came out. Most live albums - the memorable ones particularly - are touched up so not unique there but Alive I has a lot of flaws that tell me they didn't touch it up as much as they could have. The crowd noise is the real touch up. Also Eddie Kramer is all over the place with different things, even contradictory, that he has said about the two albums.
I don’t hate this album, and I enjoy a lot of it, but it’s not my favorite and I have to agree with you in some ways. Alive III is definitely my favorite and more live sounded than this
Something important that I'd like to add: You say you don't like the songs. That's an opinion and I won't argue against that. As a musician this was a great album. A lot of cool simple riffs ... and a lot of them were the first riffs I learned to play ... I can't speak for all rockers out there ... but I would say that I speak for a lot of guitarplayers here in Sweden.
I liked the first 3 albums snd and the second 3 albums after that I wasn't very interested in there new sound remember this is when these record's came out there live albums where just something you expect them to do kiss alive 2 didn't even have enough tracks to fill a double album kiss in the 70s where good dynasty and pretty much from then on weren't very good at all
If you listen to the original Live recordings, they were very very close to the alive album versions. Not as much done as said and could have used the original live tracks and it would be just as good. Lots are on youtube of the original live recordings, check em out.
Yes, most live albums have been touched up in the studio same with live videos that are either sold in retail for home video or broadcast on TV - not all live, by far...
Your treading on some might thin ice i see lol Your not totally wrong though, I'm not a big live album guy but alive is a good listen, the songs, especially from the debut, have more power on alive than they did in the studio. It was much bigger sounding which played into what KISS was. And as much as i like Paul, he's always been my favorite member of KISS, he's a terrible stage banter guy lol i really don't think that ever changed much, however i think he's always been under appreciated as a vocalist. I love kiss alive (or kiss kind of live lol) for what it did for the band but honestly i don't play it that much either
I never cared much for live albums. I much rather go on RU-vid and watch them live. You get more out of it then just listening to it. Especially Metal bands. Kiss, Metallica, ARCH Enemy etc...but that's just my humble opinion 🤘😁🤘
Live albums were a seventies thing when you couldn't just watch the band live at the tap of a button and had to wait for the band to tour. I became a Kiss fan in late 77 / early 78 and only got to see them moving when attending a UK convention in 79. Until then the live albums were the closest thing you had
It comes down to keeping things in proper perspective for the time it was released. I generally think regardless of my personal opinion of anything, it is and should be considered a great album because of its impact. This album for the intended purpose of its release knocked it out of the park like few albums have for the purpose they were released for. You have to couple this with all that came before it, all that would come after it, the marketing, the interviews, this album was the cornerstone of gaining a following and boy did it do that in spades. It solidified the identity of being something new, outrageous yet approachable combined with the other entire PR surrounding it they did. It’s a snap shot in time of the mid 70’s, and this is where it was at. It way exceeded expectations I’m very sure of that. So we can say all the fixing over dubs that went in, well Cheap Trick at Budokan was really repaired that way, look at what it did for them. When you buy and listen to the album, it’s not live anymore is it. That is another perspective, live is a moment in time that cannot ever be perfectly reproduce as live every again. So why not fix what should be fixed to make it better as it was a selling and marketing vehicle to garner interest so people would want to check out a “real live” event. It did its job. A lot of people just had to check out the live thing for themselves from that point forward. With KISS it was not just the music, it was the experience and they peeked interest in the band with this. Destroyer album was greatly benefitted from all this new interest in the band based on this album. Without this album, how well does destroyer actually do? In some cases, no PR is bad PR. They took a fair amount of crap for the marketing and presentation of the band, but they because a you love them or hate them thing, and both sides fixated on them and that gains incredible loyalty from the love them side. Much the same way Taylor Swift love her or hate her keeps her totally in the public conscience because she gets as much free publicity from those that hate her that won’t stop bring her up.
The only thing that matters in music is the SOUND. How the sound is executed does not matter. Banter? Are you serious? Peter was always a good rock and roll drummer. Was a student of Jerry Nolan . Music is the least important aspect? How TF is that possible for a rock show? Others may have said that but don’t know what they are talking about and an insincere attempt at empathy .
I have no problem with you or anybody else for personally feeling that Alive! is not a great album. The problem is that your reasons you presented are more arbitrary than personal. Not great songs? The material is precisely one of the main reasons why I like Alive! The entire set list is at a consistent level of likeability. Sure, some cuts are better than others, but unlike most live albums of that era, there are no “skip” tracks that I would always pass up if I could. For example, “Frampton Comes Alive” was also a very well done album, but a lot of the songs on it were just filler if you ask me. What's wrong with fixing it in the mix? Almost every live album of that time period was guilty of editing and enriching live recordings to make them sound better. It’s no different than a group recording in the studio - you think KISS didn’t fix things on their studio albums? And I mean fix them like crazy? C’mon. You were right about Peter Criss, though: I detect no re-dos on drums or his vocals (Alive II is another story) I also have to agree with you about Paul Stanley. That guy has always bugged me. He tried too hard to be cool, and that was precisely why he was never cool. He wasn’t near as good a frontman as he obviously thought he was. Granted, Paul wrote some of the band’s best material, but onstage he was almost a distraction. I think KISS did a remarkable job of providing visuals on their album jacket, plus they included a booklet. The open-up jacket and the booklet made for a visual experience to accompany the album. The only other group who really did this up to that time were The Beatles. The attention paid to the visual aspect of the album is one of the things that made Alive! great. You are absolutely correct about Alive! blowing open the doors for not only KISS, but the whole live-album genre. Alive! single handedly made live albums cool thus subsequently rendering similar career victories possible for Peter Frampton, Cheap Trick, Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, and Jackson Browne to name just a few.
Good point about the gatefold pics and the booklet. One thing I think we can all agree on with Kiss is that they (mostly Gene, I believe) are master marketers.
I think overall the first records has the best tunes, mostly first album and hotter than hell, so alive before alive 2. Parasite and Black Diamond are alive favorites.
It's too bad they didn't have a good producer who could capture that live energy on the studio albums from the start. But, then again, I guess things turned out ok for them. lol
And the Kisstards go wild!! lol. I love hearing other people opinions on music because music affects each person differently. No body is wrong in their opinion.
I'm dumbfounded, slack jawed, and simply astonished. Not great songs? Are you serious? The first three albums are chock full of classic songs that were played live throughout the band's 50 year history. There isn't one song on Alive! that isn't a KISS classic. Go back to your precious Allman Brothers records.
Totally agree with #3! I do love the first three albums so to me this is a pretty great album (plus I grew up with it so it holds a special place in my tiny black heart).
I'm sure you won't, but I'd respectfully suggest you check out my other Kiss videos, which have all been positive. I've done videos on Dressed to Kill, Destroyer, Rock and Roll Over and Love Gun. I'm def no hater.
I agree with you. KISS was one of the first rock bands that I listened to and KISS Alive II was the first rock album I owned. But as I branched out into other bands I realized that KISS were great performers but not great musicians. Most of their big songs, while being catchy, are very simplistic and even most of those songs didn't come along until Destroyer and later. I often wonder if it wasn't for the showmanship, the pyrotechnics, the mystery of who was behind the makeup, and the shock value of scaring the crap out of our parents, if they would've lasted as long as they did.
you got that right, disliked and stopped watching when you said it had crappy songs. Probably not a good idea to rile up the Kiss fans with your lack of musical taste.
lame. i liked alive when i was 12 and didnt know any better. but then i heard real rock bands and realized kiss is for children. horrible untalented band. listen to ace frehley today. still horrible
Listen to the Cleveland King Biscuit Flour Hour from 74. Wildwood Jersey also. That's where most if not all were recorded before being fixed up in the studio. only a few mistakes from Paul and Gene really.
