Seinfeld’s Unfrosted was … Not Bad


Jerry Seinfelds Unfrosted was … not bad. Screech! Spit coffee! Swear word! Screams! Car Crash! It is shocking, I know, to hear that coming from a Jerry Seinfeld fanatic. If you’ve read any of the articles on this site, you know how often I source him as one of the greatest comedic minds alive today. I consider him one of the best standup comedians of his generation, and his observations on what makes us weird have had a huge influence on this site. The show Seinfeld was my favorite sitcom of all time, I loved Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, and I even enjoyed his Bee Movie. I didn’t love it, but I really liked it for what it was. Oh, and I laughed so hard during one of his standup shows that Jerry Seinfeld looked over at me with a look that suggested he was comedically concerned about my health. If the difference between fanatic and fan is excessive and intense, uncritical devotion, I am a fanatic. I never wrote to him, collected dolls, scripts, or took tours, but if there’s a hip term I don’t know for a passive fanatic, that’s me. I’m probably his idea of the perfect fan, a guy who quietly buys and watches anything to which he attaches his name. Which is why it pains me to write these five words: “Unfrosted is not as funny as I thought it would be.”

Watching the movie reminded me how we all want more of everything we love. We want more from our favorite artists, athletes, politicians, and plumbers, until they give us so much that we realize it probably would’ve been better if they left us in a state of wanting more. That’s the advice seasoned entertainers often leave young upstarts, “Always leave them wanting more.”  

And Seinfeld warned us, numerous times, that more is not always better. He’s said it in relation to why he decided to prematurely end his show Seinfeld, but he’s applied that principle to his career too. He’s informed us on so many days, and in so many ways, in the numerous interviews he’s done throughout his career, that he’s learned that he’s best when he stays in his lane, his lane being standup. He’s learned what he’s good at, and what he’s not, and he has proven to be the opposite of what makes some comedians so great, in the sense that he’s not daring, risky, or experimental.

If I were to pitch him a project, I would say he and Larry David should develop a sketch comedy in the Mr. Show vein, but we can only guess that he’s had hundreds of similar pitches from friends, fellow writers, and corporate execs, and he’s turned them all down. Some of those projects may have proved embarrassing, some may have been so far out of his lane that he didn’t even consider them, but we have to guess that some projects that were so close that he had a tough time turning them down. He did it all, because he knows who he is, what he’s good at and what he’s not, and he’s learned how to stay in his own lane.   

On the greatest sitcom of all time, Jerry Seinfeld surprisingly (to me anyway) credited the three actors (Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, Michael Richards, and Jason Alexander) for making the show so brilliant. He does not shy away from the idea that the writing on the show, of which he played a huge role, was great, but he admits that the actors brought that writing to the next level.  

“I did get caught in a beautiful, cyclonic weather event,” he said in an interview. “The actors, Larry David, the thirteen phenomenal comedy writers, and everyone on both sides of the camera was a killer. You know when you’re a part of it, but you know it’s not you. You’re a part of it, but if you’re smart, you know it’s not you. It’s not all you.”   

On Seinfeld, Jerry played the Alex Rieger of Taxi, the Sam Malone of Cheers, the center of the storm. He’s always been great at adding that final comment, lifting that eyebrow to exaggerated levels, and saying, “ALL RIGHT!” at the end of another character’s hilarious rant. He knows how to put a cherry atop the pie in other words. As long as that pie, or the acting required to nuance it, was filled in by someone else. He can write funny, he can deliver a short, crisp line deliver as well as anyone, but the nuances in the acting craft required to build to Seinfeld’s punctuation were always best left to others. I heard him say this so many times that I saw it, until I accepted it, but I always thought there was a bit of humility attached to it. Some of us were so blinded by enthusiasm that we never learned how to curb it completely.

When he decided to end Seinfeld after the ninth season, it felt similar to an athlete retiring at the downside of their peak, not the prolonged, sad tail end, just the other side of the peak. There were hints in seasons eight and nine, after Larry David left, that the show was on the downside of its peak, but it was still the best show on TV. Why would an athlete, or a successful showrunner, quit prematurely? I understand not wanting to outstay your welcome, or allowing us to see glaring levels of diminishment and not wanting to go out like that, but if you’re lucky, you might still have forty years on this planet. What are you going to do in the rest of your life to top that? Some of them, I think, are too worried about what we think. They don’t want us to see their downside, or because they love the game so much that they can’t bear playing at anything less than their peak. They can’t bear someone saying, “If you just called it quits after season nine, it would’ve been a great show beginning to end. Season ten was probably one season too many.” They, some of them, don’t want us to remember them as someone who stayed around too long.

When we were kids, we ached for another Star Wars movie, then we got one later, much later, and it ruined the legacy of Star Wars. After the second trilogy was complete, the almost unanimous opinion among those I know is they probably should’ve left us wanting. As Led Zeppelin did. Zeppelin broke up after the untimely death of their drummer John Bonham, in 1980. We spent our teens and early twenties talking about the possibility of a reunion and another Zep album. I understand they said it wouldn’t feel the same without Bonham, but the remaining band members were still in their early-to-mid thirties when they broke up. How do you leave a juggernaut like Led Zeppelin in your early thirties? The Beatles were in their twenties when they broke up. As Theodore Roosevelt said of being president so young, “The worst thing about being president of the United States so young, is that there’s nothing you can do to top that for the rest of your life.” Led Zeppelin left us wanting, and it was probably for the best. What could they have done to top those first six albums? They most likely, and in all probability, would’ve only disappointed.

In a career studded with comedy gold, Gold Jerry! Gold! Unfrosted has the feel of a sequel. It’s not a sequel, but how many of us walked out of a killer comedy, talking about how that movie just screams out for a sequel. We didn’t talk about how great that comedy was, we instantly wanted more. Then, when the sequel came out, it was, “That wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t as good as the first one.” That was the impression Unfrosted left on me. It felt like all the players were trying to recapture something that used to be really funny, and we were all prepared with our preparatory smiles on our faces, until the smiles slowly faded away.  

The characters have this feel of trying to repeat something that worked before, but it just doesn’t for all the mysterious reasons that some movies work and some just don’t. The jokes have a feel about them that suggests to us that they’re brilliant, but they’ve been done so many times before that we no longer need to figure them out. As someone who doesn’t know one-one hundredths of the knowledge Jerry Seinfeld has about comedy, I think the figuring out part is the reward of comedy. 

Unfrosted seeks the opposite tact. It goes for familiarity, and we all love familiarity. Familiarity with actors, themes, concepts, and all that. Unfrosted displays this level of familiarity in the beginning, to establish a through line to the audience, but it never branches out into that unique spin that kind of shocks us into laughter. The setting of the movie is the 60s, and what a foolish time that was, and even though this has been a million times before, we still think it could be great in the minds of geniuses.

It’s a mystery to us why some movies don’t work, because we don’t make movies, but you’ll often hear moviemakers, actors, and all the other players say, in interviews, that they don’t know why either. “We thought it was funny, but we had no idea how huge it would get.” We don’t often hear the players involved say, “We thought it would be huge, but we had no idea people would consider it a little boring.” What works and what doesn’t is a mystery to us, and it’s a mystery to them. Generally speaking, dramas and action movies are probably a lot easier to predict for those involved, especially when the star actor signs on to the vehicle. Comedies and horror have a super secret formula that even those involved in the finer details of the production involved don’t know whether it will hit or not.  

Unfrosted gave us all a be-careful-what-you-wish-for feel, because you just might get it. As much as we cried out for a movie, or any project, from Jerry Seinfeld, we walked away from it thinking that Unfrosted, unfortunately, should never have been made. What could they have done to make you feel better about it? “I don’t know, I don’t make movies, but they probably should’ve left me wanting more instead of giving it to me.”

Watching Unfrosted, reminds us of that elite athlete who retired on the downside of a peak, not the bottom, just the downside, and we clamored for his return. How can he retire at 37? He still had what two-to-three years left? If he lives to eighty, he’ll spend the next 43 years reminiscing and thinking he should’ve played two-to-three more years at least. Then he comes back, and we see how much his skills have declined. He didn’t do it for the money, I can tell you that much. He did it, because he loves the game, and what’s wrong with that?

The point some people make on various websites is that athletes and entertainers run the risk of ruining their legacy by staying too long. This line right here makes me almost fighting mad. So, you’re telling me that the athlete who made so much money for the league, the city, and the franchise shouldn’t be able to sell his wares to anyone who will take them? He shouldn’t try to get another paycheck for the punishment he put his body through for your entertainment, because you want to remember him the way you want to remember him? Isn’t that a bit myopic, even selfish? He wanted to get paid for his efforts, of course, but he didn’t necessarily do it for the money? Seinfeld, and most modern athletes, have so much money that that’s not why they’re doing it. They’re doing it for the love the game so much that they want to play at least two more years? What’s wrong with that, and what’s wrong with you for wanting to deny him that?

Did Seinfeld ruin his legacy by doing Unfrosted? No, first of all, it wasn’t that bad, but, then again, I never expected to say that a Seinfeld project “wasn’t that bad”. I don’t remember any of the elite athletes who “stayed one year too long” for those latter years, and I don’t begrudge them for taking as many paychecks as they could before they called it a career. I also don’t begrudge them the idea that they loved the game so much that they couldn’t walk away, until it was obvious to them that they truly couldn’t play the game anymore. I actually respect it, as I say it was for the love of the game. I respect the fact that Seinfeld’s friend pitched him on the idea of Unfrosted, and not only did he like the idea, but he didn’t think he was done yet. He thought he had one more big project in him, because he loves doing the things he does so much that he wanted to try it at least one more time. Good for you, Mr. Seinfeld, I say, and if he feels like doing another project, or projects, I’ll be there on the first day it’s released.  

Jerry Seinfeld has admitted that he doesn’t expect to be remembered after he’s gone, and he’s even gone so far as to say he doesn’t care, or that’s not his driving force. I’ll remember Jerry Seinfeld as a great, almost perfect standup comedian, the cocreator of one of the greatest sitcoms in TV history, and as a gifted natural when it comes to observational humor, but Unfrosted doesn’t do much to either lift or damage his legacy. It was just a marginally entertaining movie that they probably won’t list in his very lengthy resume when that final wave off arrives.

It was the Best of Times … In Entertainment


“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.” –Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities 

It’s the human condition to believe we live in the best of times and the worst. Psychologists have terms for various strains of bias that inform our opinions, and Dickens’ famous line encompasses them all. I’m biased, you’re biased, and the whole damned system is biased, but this particular article focuses most on what could be called a generational bias, or nostalgia bias. Our generational bias leads us to believe that everything was funnier, more intellectual, and more stimulating than anything before or since. While I admit that the bias is strong in me, I challenge anyone to defeat the opinions in this article. 

“I am biased.” There, I wrote it, and I’ll write it again to satisfy anyone who challenges the biased nature of this article. The one thing I’ve found is that we can write this over and over again, but there will always be someone who stands up and says, “Yeah, but aren’t you biased?” and they say it with one of those grins that suggest they caught you. 

“Ok, you caught me,” I confess, “but I wrote a whole paragraph about it at the beginning, I added it in the middle, and I concluded with it. Check the minutes of your transcript of our little conversation in this intangible bistro.” So, rather than try to qualify every single nugget of what I’m about to write, go ahead and place a parenthetical (back to top) at the end of each statement if that’s what you need to do to assure yourself that I admit to having a mean case of generational bias, which might be nostalgia bias, considering that the time frame stretches from 1975 to 2001.

If you’re going to challenge my recency bias, however, I ask you to name an era of entertainment that matches the total output from the 1975 to 2001. We’re talking top-notch, quantity and quality, from the era of your argument to mine. Everyone has their opinion, of course, and some say that some of the artists listed in those productions were overhyped by the marketing teams spending huge dollars to see to it that their artist made it to the A-List. This happened frequently during this twenty-six-year chunk of time, as the individual eras therein were chock full of money to be spent in all avenues of entertainment, but with the advantage of hindsight, we can weed through the A-List to ferret out the true artists from the pretenders. Even after doing this, the A-List from this twenty-six-year era is still daunting. 

We can all go through this twenty-six-year era and parse out which was better than the other, but taken together as a whole, I believe the total number of good-to-great movies, the sheer breadth of music, and comedy from the era between 1975 and 2001, will not only go down as the greatest era of entertainment in the United States, but most future eras won’t even try to compete. They’ll just go retro, and try to buy the back-catalogs of the artists from the era, from whomever owns it “now”, to pursue ways to use it and re-use it, market it, and merchandise it in the future. Some might include the 1960’s in some of those entertainment venues, and others will include the 2000 to 2010 era, but after watching, reading, and listening to just about everything from those eras, everything in the 60s now seems to prelude this thirty-year peak, in retrospect, and just about everything that followed seemed to be trailing off.

There are exceptions to the rule, of course, as there are always going to be exceptions to every rule. There will always be a couple great movies in any given year, a few great albums here and there, and future comedians who deliver exceptional material in the future. If you lived through this era though, you knew to expect that an exceptional artist would deliver something exceptional in any given month. It was also “an event” when an actor, director, musician or band, and this author came out with something new. Tuesday used to be “the day” when new albums came out, Friday was “the day” when new movies came out, and I when one of my favorite artists was coming out with something new, I knew months in advance. I realize I’m old now, and no longer on the cutting edge, but does anyone look forward to such things anymore? The new music is downloaded on your music subscription service on Friday now, and your new movies are downloaded into your streaming service. There’s still theaters, in the present tense of this article, but most people are willing to wait, the on average 30 days for it to appear on a streaming service. Do modern artist still have “event” status with their new releases? 

While reading this, I’m sure you thought of some exceptions to the 1975 to 2001 timeframe, The Beatles, The Godfather I and II to name but a few of the exceptions you probably considered. The point of this article is not to quibble over the merits of some critical greats that happened before or after but the general whole. 

My biases came into play in the 90s, because that was the first era when I had real disposable income of my own, and I almost went broke numerous times, trying to rent every movie that had ever been made, listen to every album of music ever created, and I stayed up late to listen to every comedian the late-night talk shows invited on. The reader might consider it a bold statement to say I know everything vital and important to come from this thirty-year peak, or they might consider it a little sad that I devoted so much of my free time and disposable income to this pursuit, but few who know me would challenge my reference base of the mostly inconsequential information from the field of entertainment that occurred during this era. 

I don’t view this cast knowledge of movies, music and books a brag, because other than winning some Trivial Pursuit games and winning some trivia games in bars, I haven’t profited from my mastery of useless knowledge in any way. It’s useless, inconsequential information that doesn’t serve a purpose. Yet, from 1975-2001, I was entertained. The movies, music and books filled my free time. 

Another area to which I devoted too much free time and disposable income was in the area of others writing about the music, movies and books from this era. Some devoted too many calories to framing artistic creations in political orientation. These sophisticated sophists declared some chunks of time “the dark ages,” if that artistic creation occurred during an era in which the office of the president was of a political orientation different from theirs. It was so over the top at times, that it was almost funny. As one who lived through it, and now looks back with a wistful eye at the glorious times these decades were, that’s a big ball of nonsense. It’s a feeble attempt to rewrite history through a politically biased lens, and I write that asking the reader to consider that when one goes down the list of parties in that powerful seat, over the course of this thirty-year chunk of time, it’s mostly even.    

Unless you consider The Cold War with Russia an actual war, the 70s were the first era that was largely free of war. The Vietnam War ended in 1975, and that was preceded by the Korean War, and WWII. Except for a few skirmishes here and there, the era between 1975 and 09/11/2001 was largely free of war. Except for a few moments here and there, America experienced such a great era of stability and prosperity for thirty years that we had too much free time on our hands. In order to keep ourselves intrigued, we invented scandals, controversies, and we spent most of our free time worrying about what could happen if things weren’t this great. The best thing politicians could think of, to keep us mired in fear was, “Things are great, now, sure, but they could be worse, and if elect that other guy, they will.” Our movies needed to invent possible tragedies and catastrophes just to remind us that tragedies and catastrophes could happen. Now that we’re through that era how many of us wish we could go back and realize how many calories we wasted worrying about stupid stuff that never happened. How much would you give to go back in time right now and tell yourself to avoid worrying about that, “because that won’t happen, because it didn’t happen, and it probably never will.” It worked back then, of course, as we all worried about it, and the politicians and the groups all benefitted from the fear, because we all agreed that it was such a scary prospect that we agreed to devote billions of dollars to try to stop something that would never happen. As much as we hate to admit it now, in a historical perspective, we lived and still live, in the best of times. 

There were so many factions and fractions in movies, music, TV, and books for the average consumer to consider, and yet we all agreed on most topics. A walk through the A-List contributors in the early 70s, in music and the movies, is so daunting that I won’t even try to list them. The list in the 80s and 90s not only continued this legacy, but these eras may have topped the 70s by sheer volume. Before we move on, think about that A-List for just a second. How many different, varied, and talented artists littered that A-List compendium. We usually try to shorten that list a little, just for sake of conversation, but the A-List of that era is so long that we feel a need to limit entrants just so we can have a decent conversation on that topic without putting people to sleep when we try to avoid missing someone. Think about all of the great directors, and how many movies they released during this twenty-year chunk of time. Think about all of the various musicians, and all of their various templates. We could devote this entire article to the Billboard Top 100, the Top of the Pops, or any of the other publications and venues that tried to top one another with the A-list artists they featured. Now, think of the magazines, both mass market and the niche ones, that tried to cover the A-Lists of music, the movies, books, and entertainment in general.

As one who wasn’t exclusively enamored by A-list celebrities, and rock stars, I often found myself enjoying the entertainment put out by those others might call the B-List artists, C-Lists, and D-lists, but I only did so, because I exhausted myself trying to watch, listen to, and read everything at the top of those lists in the first half of the era. At some point, also, the influenced began to appear to parody the influencers. I almost went broke numerous times trying to keep up, stay hip, and know every reference point, joke, and conversation topic people were having. Some call these conversations “water cooler” conversations, the coffee shop, or the break area. Whatever the case was, I was one of those who had to know everything, and there were so many movies, so much music, and so many great books and comedians to know about, for someone who had to know, that no past era compares when it comes to pure output and I dare say no future era will even try to compete. If you love music, movies, books, and comedy it was the greatest era in human existence to be alive.  

My nephews, some thirty years my junior, insist that the 80s were greatest musical era ever created, and they don’t even bother trying to defend “their” era. They have no allegiance to it in anyway. They state that the 80s were the greatest era of music as if it’s not only a fact, but such an obvious fact that it’s not even worth discussing. They don’t list one particular artist as the game-changing artist, as many of us will, but they do try to compile a list of influential artists that I considered quite daunting, and they insist no other era can compete. Even though I had nothing to do with creating the music in this era in anyway, I took some pride looking back and hearing an outsider consider this era I lived through the greatest era ever. Due probably to my age, more than anything else, I’m more of a 90s guy, and being a 90s guy, I always considered the 80s a silly era of music, until my nephews put their spin on it. I also write all of this with the asterisk pointed to the notion that proponents of any era between the 60s and the 00s have valid arguments for “their” era.

My rhetorical question, sent out to the ether, is will future inhabitants in the United States be having arguments over the specific eras of this thirty-year chunk of time for the next 60 to 70 years? Will there be a “rock revival” in 2050 that puts the 80s music to shame? Will there be a return-to-roots revival in the movie industry that puts the quality and quantity of the movies from the 70s in the dustbin? 

Some argue that with the proliferation of streaming services and the various outlets on the internet, Americans will never collectively agree on great artistic outputs ever again. They argue that there’s just so much to choose from that it inhibits the idea of a Michael Jackson, a Star Wars, or even a more recent release like the book The Da Vinci Code from ever rocking our world in quite the same manner. These arguments discount the genius effect, of course, as every era has their own geniuses. The question I have, and it seeks to be as objective as possible for someone obviously imbued with a whole bunch of biases, is will those future geniuses ever be able to take future generations to the point that they can finally put 1970 to 1999 to rest, or will 2070 America still be arguing the relative merits of Michael Jackson vs. Madonna; Spielberg vs. Lucas vs. Coppola; Seinfeld vs. Leno; and Chevy Chase vs. Steve Martin vs. Bill Murray?   

One of the primary reasons there might never be an era that tops this era is the topic no common fan wants to talk about but they are know: money. There was so much money to be made in movies and music that the executives and their boardrooms didn’t mind pouring money into projects, because they knew they’d make it back eventually. They had money makers and artistic projects, and they devoted huge chunks of money and resources to both, because at the end of the year, they knew they would always be in the black. 

How many guys with nothing but a guitar strapped to their back receive the kind of funding and support they may have made twenty years ago? How many “good looking waiters who can act” is a movie studio going to bank on if a majority of the money they see is from the comparatively flat streaming services? The amount of money that man may have made for himself and those who supported his rise, just isn’t there anymore, not like it was between 1975 and 2001.

My unusual hunger to know everything about everything was born watching Johnny Carson and David Letterman. I paid hard money and devoted way too much time trying “to get” every reference they included in their jokes, so I tried to watch every movie ever made, listen to every song, and read every book. And I didn’t just want to get the references to movies, songs and books from my generation, I wanted to get the jokes and references to their generation and the generation before that. This was nearly impossible, of course, but I did try. When I couldn’t understand their jokes in the moment, I faked it, but I was so embarrassed I didn’t get that particular joke that I researched it, so I would get it next time. It was that important to me. I don’t know if the younger generation is intimidated by the qualitative and quantitative output of that era, but they don’t care about this near as much as I did. 

They basically ignore most of my reference jokes, and when I ask them if they get it, they say no. “You don’t get it, because you haven’t seen one of the greatest movies ever made,” I say. (I’ve said this about various books and music too.) Again, if someone of a prior generation said this to me, I probably would’ve experienced such a powerful FOMO that I might have watched it, read it, or listened to it that night. If I drop such a reference on them, they immediately dismiss it as “Old man,” stuff. 

“It’s probably an old man humor,” they say, if I tell them a show or movie is must see. It’s funny when they insult me in this manner, don’t get me wrong, but it amazes me that there’s no curiosity on their part to “to get” my well known references from the best of … lists. When I’ve survived the insult of my vicarious ownership of such productions and insisted that they watch that essential show or movie to up their reference base, they’ve watched some of them and returned with: “It’s old man humor.”

If the younger people who surround me are endemic of their generation, this article is the equivalent of screaming into a well. Yet, I maintain that the sheer output from so many different, varied artists, from so many different corners of the country, that occurred in these thirty years, will probably never be matched in my humble opinion, an opinion obviously derived from generational, or nostalgic, bias.    

KISS: Keep it Simple, and Silly!


“If you listen to KISS, you’re stupid!” said an anonymous poster on a message board.

I’ve been through my Michael Jackson phases, KISS phases, Radiohead phases, King Crimson, Frank Zappa, Beatles, and too many others to list here. “Did you say you went through a KISS phase? You like KISS?” Sure, back when I was young, and all I wanted to hear were fun, silly, and artists who kept it simple. I grew out of them, to some degree, but I still listen to them every once in a while. And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with keeping it simple and silly, anyway? It’s fun.  

There are no reported connections between the band members choosing the name, KISS, and the acronym, the latter of which many state stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid, but has any rock band ever embodied that acronym better than KISS? 

The brief history of the acronym KISS is that it was developed by a lead naval engineer who instructed his team of engineers to design aircraft to keep the designs so simple that they could be repaired quickly on the battlefield. 

A Brief History of KISS 

Wicked Lester was the band Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley belonged in shortly before they decided to form their own band. Wicked Lester, according to Stanley and Simmons, was all over the map. I’ve never heard the music on Wicked Lester’s lone album, but those songs apparently involved keyboards and a flute. The two of them confessed that they didn’t know who they were back then, and they didn’t know what they wanted to do. They didn’t say that the music of Wicked Lester was too complicated and complex, but that was my takeaway. My takeaway is that they wanted to create a masterpiece in the manner all young artists want to create the next Dark Side of the MoonZoso, Sgt. Peppers, Exile on Main Street, or Aqualung. Whatever they were trying to do, they realized that it wasn’t them. They decided to tear it all down and create KISS (the acronym) tunes that young kids could enjoy and their grandparents wouldn’t find too offensive. They decided to play big songs that could be played in arenas.  

KISS ended up being the perfect band for “stupid” young, pre-teen boys who didn’t care about sophisticated complications of deep, moving music that could be defined and redefined with repeated listens. The KISS demographic, for most of my youth, was almost exclusively young and male. Some girls liked the song Beth, but they couldn’t believe the song came from KISS. (When I was young, I considered Beth a betrayal, as I considered KISS the only band that I could trust to avoid going soft. I never heard of AC/DC at that point.) KISS was fun, theatrical, arena rock that lifted you up on your feet, with a fist held high while you sang the lyrics with them. 

My neighborhood friends and I used to pretend that we were KISS-in-concert. I was The Spaceman, my best friend was The Demon, and his little brother was Catman. (Nobody wanted to be Starchild.) We would play air guitar and air drums in an area they called the basement. I would arch back like Ace did when he played his solos, because I thought that was one of the coolest things ever, and my friend waggled his tongue, spat blood, and pretended to blow fire with Gene. So, while the rest of you were listening to the important and vital music, we were having fun. 

KISS didn’t invent the terms arena rock, pomp rock, corporate rock, or anthemic songs, and the terms weren’t invented to describe them, but KISS is now one of the first bands that come to mind when we hear such terms. 

Who you Is?

KISS albums were chock full of silly, simple songs that won’t move you spiritually or cause anyone to think of the philosophy of Epicurus, but as the aphorism that some attribute to Leonardo da Vinci says, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” If you consider it a stretch to attach anything KISS did to the term sophistication, I feel you, but how much effort goes into achieving complex sophistication, and how much restraint does it require to keep it as simple as possible?

Who is the better writer William Faulkner or Ernest Hemingway? Those who love Faulkner often talk about the beautiful language he used to paint an images in the mind. “It was powerful and provocative,” they say. Few would argue that Faulkner doesn’t deserve to be considered one of our greatest writers, but there was a feeling of “could we get to the point here” when reading him. Hemingway sought to paint with an economy of words, seeking picture perfect sentences to describe and characterize in the most succinct manner possible. One, it could be said, could not wait to show us what a great writer he was, and the other restrained such impulses to make his stories more readable to a wider audience. Both might suggest the other insults his audience in relative ways, and both might say theirs is the finer artform. Both audiences would claim sophistication in their own right and the sophistry of the other.  

The point is we all know who KISS were. All we have to do is look at them to know that subtlety and sophistication were not their driving force. The point is not to denigrate KISS, but to say they put together a package far different from the one employed by a Bob Dylan or a Radiohead. The point is we know who KISS are, yet message board contributors continue to take time out of their day to remind us how awful they were. “…But I like them.” “That’s because you have such poor taste in music.”   

Why does anyone feel the need to go to a message board to inform the world how awful YOU thought KISS were? “I can’t help it, I’m just so durn sophisticated.” That’s fantastic Papa Smurf 124, but you do realize that your precious anonymity means that no one really cares what you think?  

I used to denigrate people who listened to Whitney Houston and Celine Dion, in the manner people now denigrate the average KISS fan, but I realized the market is wide enough and divergent enough to welcome all. You can be a KISS fan, a Radiohead fan, or a Mariah Carey fan and know that no one is superior or inferior. They just enjoy listening to different types of music, and why do you care so much that they do? I choose Radiohead as an example of the complete opposite of KISS, on the musical spectrum, among mainstream acts. Radiohead writes complicated structures, with deep, provocative lyrics, and I am a huge fan. The question is do they write sophisticated material for the purpose of being sophisticated, so all their fans can prove their sophistication by saying that they enjoy listening to more sophisticated music? They get it, you don’t, because you’re a KISS fan, and they’ll spit the latter in the most condescending tone possible. KISS wrote simple, party music. Everyone knows who they are. Everyone knows they were a toe-tapping, foot stomping band who rarely tried to be something they weren’t (The Elder and Carnival of Souls excepted). 

Music is the tie that binds. It can be the only thing that you and your brothers share, the reason you fall in love, and the thing that helps you make friends from such divergent backgrounds. It, more than any other artistic medium, brings us all together. There’s a little something out there for everyone. For others, and they are in the minority, it can be the great divide.