Talk:Destroyer (Kiss album)

Heavy Metal

I think the genre for this album should be Hard rock / Heavy metal, like Guns N' Roses Appetite for Destruction because of the songs Detriot Rock City, which is on VH1's top 40 greatest metal songs, and God of Thunder. This is a classic hard rock / heavy metal album. 68.103.160.33 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smudge on Paul Stanley's raised leg

On the vinyl album cover, there is a distortion at the ankle of Paul Stanley's right leg. It appears to be an accidental smudge on the original painting. Is there any interest in finding out what that is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.212.100 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I always assumed it was smoke from the burning city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.196.14 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock And Roll Party

I'm not a fan of putting the "Rock And Roll Party" in the track listing here. In the notes as an addendum, sure. But it's not a "track"; not a "song". It's just a production addendum afterthought. I'll get a consensus though before deleting. --Redrkr (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red - I agree with you...leave it as a "hidden track" with notes. Also, why is it listed as an "Instrumental" when you can clearly hear Paul's voice? Granted, it is a recorded loop from "Alive!", but still... FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with calling it a hidden track (9 years after the original comment but a mere 4 months after the next comment :) ). I would like to leave one note here for informational purposes, though. The current reference in the article for the hidden track says the track is 'generally referred to as "Rock And Roll Party,"' but discusses the, presumably, only time the track was actually given a name on any sort of release, writing:

The title "Rock And Roll Demons" was used on the February test pressing of the LP at Sterling Sound.

Wantnot (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deluxe edition

i want to add a mention of the upcoming destroyer deluxe edition (http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kiss-destroyer-deluxe-edition-release-date/), but I am not sure of which section to put it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.44.10 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

additional personnel

anything more you can add? there is defintely piano and strings in songs like Beth and Great Expectations. Also what about the rumor that Bob Ezrin played the signature bass riff on Detroit Rock City? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.173.70 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyer Resurrected original tapes

This section mentions that "The album was remixed from the original DAT tapes". As Destroyer was recorded in the 70's before the invention of the DAT, this cannot be correct. I'm going to change it to "multitrack tapes" which would make more sense in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.16.85 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request on April 27 2013 I think Dick wagner played guitar on Flaming youth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.233.65 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

On the Resurrected reissue, the original version of "Sweet Pain" with Dick Wagner's guitar solo was moved to the end as an extra track, track 11. That's why it is titled "Sweet Pain (Original Guitar Solo)". The previously unreleased version of the song with Ace's solo is put in its place as track 6. Someone keeps switching them around even after I undo their edits, so I am putting this here to make sure they can see and hopefully stop trying to make an incorrect change.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Some citations on these facts:[reply]

http://www.kissfaq.com/discography/resurrected.html ("The "original guitar solo" version is the Dick Wagner solo version originally included on the album in 1976, while the version in the running order of the album is the Ace Frehley version.")
http://3minuterecord.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/kiss-destroyer-resurrected-album-review/ ("Even though Wagner’s “Sweet Pain” appeared on the album in 1976, it finds itself being dubbed as a bonus track and tacked on at the end of the running order.")
https://www.facebook.com/KISS/posts/10151107050386412 ("Other rediscovered gems include a complete, alternate guitar solo for the track “Sweet Pain,” now heard for the first time since it was originally recorded. The newly remixed “Sweet Pain” with the original guitar solo will be included as a bonus track. ")
http://www.discogs.com/Kiss-Destroyer-Resurrected/release/3839872
Fuck

Excuse me? There is no cause for you to respond that way. I gave factual references why the edit you keep trying to make is incorrect, and instead of explaining why you keep doing this or citing examples as to why the above references are wrong, you respond with an obscenity. You also did not sign your comment. I'm going to fix this one more time and if you persist, and refuse to discuss the issue in a civil way, I will be forced to apply for Wikipedia dispute resolution as what you are doing is veering very close to deliberate vandalism. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect this page if you don't i'll keep editing it back just protect this page then i'll stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.163.69 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain yourself a bit more clearly? What does "protect this page" mean? Wikipedia pages are changed and updated all the time when information is found to be wrong. The information on the two "Sweet Pain" tracks was incorrect. They were switched. I explained that to you and gave you linked references above that show that the original listing was incorrect. Why would you wish to keep trying to have the wrong information listed? I changed the page, but I explained WHY, and I listed sources that backed it up. If you want to argue the point, you need to explain why.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means this page is Semi-Protected didn't you know what it means but looks like im gonna keep editing it back then cause you won't semi-protect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.163.69 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what semi-protection is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection) but I am not an unregistered or new editor, and my edits were a correction (backed up by references), not vandalism. Perhaps you can explain why semi-protection ould prevent a mistake from being corrected? You still have not said anything about the error that needs to be fixed, or given any facts in response that would argue against correcting the error. If I am not correcting it the way you prefer, why don't you correct it, instead of reverting it to something that's wrong?Greg Fasolino (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

It looks like Greg's edits regarding the track listing are well cited and uncontroversial. If they continue to be reverted without explanation, I would suggest contacting an administrator. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, I am reluctant to revert the incorrect edits yet again as the other user refuses to discuss it. You suggested contacting an administrator. What's the easiest/simplest way to do that? (I find the maze of options and instructions here somewhat challenging at times). Thanks.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Kaldari, any further suggestions? The user waited three months to again vandalize the page, and his sole response was a curse, below.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK YOU

Cursing at other Wikipedia users and editors isn't very nice. I suggest you take a course in civility and manners, as well as logic.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. I suggest you read this carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This woulden't have all started if you would just Semi-Protect this page in the first place next time i come on this page this page better Semi-Protected or else if its not FUCK YOU ALL.

If you have a legitimate issue, take it up with Wikipedia. I am under no obligation to deal with semi-protection. You ARE under an obligation to remain civil and not curse at people who don't comply with your wishes.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Hello Sorry all i had mentel problems at the time but yea sorry fro anything ive done and i will never do it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.46.228 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Destroyer (Kiss album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]