Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
- I Am A FREAK
- Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
- Posts: 7209
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:01 pm
- Location: Milano Rock City - Italy
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
Yes, I will agree, Paul is better
- kissjrj
- Prized Position Claimant
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:35 am
- Location: Shout Mercy!!!
- I Am A FREAK
- Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
- Posts: 7209
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:01 pm
- Location: Milano Rock City - Italy
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
horrible look .. I don't like this way of presentingkissjrj wrote:
- PUNCHLINE
- Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
- Posts: 9073
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:01 pm
- Location: Earth
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
No seriously, can you place a name to whoever you are quoting as Paul being the greatest frontman in history, otherwise please change the OP. Ta.
- Strutter67
- Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
- Posts: 9992
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
I say Paul pretty easily. Plays guitar, 7" platform boots and in his prime was a much better vocalist. I have nothing against Mick but to me Paul was better on multiple levels
- Strutter67
- Qualified to wear Ace's makeup!
- Posts: 9992
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
AceCarr wrote:I hear you, but don't you think Paul has made his stage act his own? David Lee Roth pretty much stole his act from Jim Dandy, but made it his own. I think the same could be said for Paul.frehley freak wrote:Everything Paul does is a Xerox of the greats that came before. not much original there.
Just because you weren't the first doesn't mean you can't be better. It's likely Mick copied someone too. Led Zeppelin came after the Stones and Beatles and to me they blow both band away combined.
- mistermike40
- Super Elite KISS Fan
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:55 am
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
Jimi Hendrix was the best front man ever... more charismatic and flamboyant than anyone else, and his coolness level was off the charts. I was too young to see him in person but you can't take your eyes off him watching concert videos.
- d4nugster
- 2,000 Man, baby!
- Posts: 2382
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:41 am
- Location: dasma, cavite!
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
there's a reason why the casual rock fan knows who mick jagger is. context, man. i'd pick KISS over the stones any day, but i have no problem admitting who's the better one.
- Reverend Colonel
- Super Elite KISS Fan
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:20 am
- Location: The Heart of the Appalachian Coal Fields
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
Mick Jagger is the original "Rock and Roll Frontman." It's hard to put him even in the discussion; he is automatically a level up on everyone else.
From a sheer entertainment aspect, I'm a David Lee Roth man, myself. David Lee Roth from 1978-1988 is everything a Rock and Roll Frontman needed to be. But then, I like a whole bunch of razzmatazz in my Rock and Roll...singing is like third or fourth most important.
Freddie Mercury is the best I've ever seen at controlling a crowd, and he had the goddamn pipes to back up the show.
Paul Stanley is a very good frontman, but I have a hard time putting him in the upper echelon (except on a purely personal level). I would say that we in the KISS Army may overvalue him just a smidge, perhaps. He's probably in the top 20 or so for me (he ranks high in the subcategory "Rock and Roll Frontman Who Also Play Guitar.")
From a sheer entertainment aspect, I'm a David Lee Roth man, myself. David Lee Roth from 1978-1988 is everything a Rock and Roll Frontman needed to be. But then, I like a whole bunch of razzmatazz in my Rock and Roll...singing is like third or fourth most important.
Freddie Mercury is the best I've ever seen at controlling a crowd, and he had the goddamn pipes to back up the show.
Paul Stanley is a very good frontman, but I have a hard time putting him in the upper echelon (except on a purely personal level). I would say that we in the KISS Army may overvalue him just a smidge, perhaps. He's probably in the top 20 or so for me (he ranks high in the subcategory "Rock and Roll Frontman Who Also Play Guitar.")
- LordThurisaz
- Prized Position Claimant
- Posts: 23309
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:37 pm
- Location: Cynical critic, Extraordinaire
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
He was quite interesting. I hate having to explain to people that he was never really much of a singer, and his strengths were being a front man, being Eddie's perfect foil, and getting Eddie to play how people enjoy him most.Reverend Colonel wrote:From a sheer entertainment aspect, I'm a David Lee Roth man, myself. David Lee Roth from 1978-1988 is everything a Rock and Roll Frontman needed to be.
- Reverend Colonel
- Super Elite KISS Fan
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:20 am
- Location: The Heart of the Appalachian Coal Fields
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
LordThurisaz wrote:He was quite interesting. I hate having to explain to people that he was never really much of a singer, and his strengths were being a front man, being Eddie's perfect foil, and getting Eddie to play how people enjoy him most.Reverend Colonel wrote:From a sheer entertainment aspect, I'm a David Lee Roth man, myself. David Lee Roth from 1978-1988 is everything a Rock and Roll Frontman needed to be.
I'm always reminded of a quote I read when I was a kid...I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "the thing that makes Van Halen great is that you have Jeff Beck on lead guitar and Johnny Carson on lead vocals; it covers all the bases."
Song lyrics are important, but so is doing spinning jumping roundhouse kicks off the fucking drum riser, you know?
Oh, and not for nothing, but the sorts of people that would give you a raft of shit over liking Diamond Dave ain't the sorts of people you wanna consort with any-damn-way. I bet they ain't a lick of fun to party with.
- LordThurisaz
- Prized Position Claimant
- Posts: 23309
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:37 pm
- Location: Cynical critic, Extraordinaire
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
Well they are the sort that bitch about how "awful" David is these days and I'm like "dudes, guys, gals... And others... He's never really been much of a singer. Chill." He's great at what he does, and that's being a spectacle for a carnival act that involves three freakishly good musicians.Reverend Colonel wrote:LordThurisaz wrote:He was quite interesting. I hate having to explain to people that he was never really much of a singer, and his strengths were being a front man, being Eddie's perfect foil, and getting Eddie to play how people enjoy him most.Reverend Colonel wrote:From a sheer entertainment aspect, I'm a David Lee Roth man, myself. David Lee Roth from 1978-1988 is everything a Rock and Roll Frontman needed to be.
I'm always reminded of a quote I read when I was a kid...I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "the thing that makes Van Halen great is that you have Jeff Beck on lead guitar and Johnny Carson on lead vocals; it covers all the bases."
Song lyrics are important, but so is doing spinning jumping roundhouse kicks off the fucking drum riser, you know?
Oh, and not for nothing, but the sorts of people that would give you a raft of shit over liking Diamond Dave ain't the sorts of people you wanna consort with any-damn-way. I bet they ain't a lick of fun to party with.
-
- Super Elite KISS Fan
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:58 pm
Re: Is Paul Stanley a better front man than Mick Jagger?
Paul is really overrated by Kiss fans as a frontman. His raps in the 80s were horrid. They are still very disruptive to the overall flow of the show. If their music was better he wouldn't have to put together the nonsense he talks about between songs, because he'd be busy trying to get more songs performed. He talks too much and offers no wisdom in his words. Without what WAS his only redeeming quality (excellent voice), he should be demoted to rhythm guitarist and a side stage spot, it's time for Gene to take the center.