Maybe Kiss is kind of a buissness now, but it seems like 'back in the day' they were the shit!  And I think they've got talent, they put on good shows, they can play their instruments, and they wrote great music back in their time.  Even to this day they still put on good shows.  If you don't know Kiss, your missing something vital from Rock n Roll.  Kiss not being in the hall of fame is just about as idiotic as Rush not being in the Rock n Roll hall of fame.

Absolutely, no doubt.  Of course, from what I can tell the Rock and Roll HOF is a popularity contest anyway.  Rush & Kiss should both be in.

Even though I do not care about the RRHOF or Kiss AT ALL, Kiss deserves to be inducted because of their influence and legendary status etc.

I don't like 'em (the only Kiss recording I have ever owned was a 45 of "All Hell's Breakin' Loose"), but they absolutely belong in.  Wish I had been five or so years older and could've seen them in the 70s.

I shoulda voted no for one reason. The Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame is LAME... I think the music community should avoid it, It's impossible to quantify. Bottom line KISS is too cool to be in, and so are many other bands who are already in, and many not yet in. I don't think being the the Rock Hall says anything about anyone. If KISS get in, then whatever, if they don't I still consider them as awesome as I ever have either way.

Yet another year, and STILL the question remains....

BlobVanDam

Fadefury

I do not doubt that they influenced generations that came after them. I'm just saying that a lot of what got them "noticed" and allowed them to become a big influencing force in the music business is because of their theatrics that is all. I'm simply saying that musically I did not have the impression of them pushing the boundaries of music at the time.   

You don't need to push boundaries to be musically influential. I won't argue that their music was groundbreaking, and while you could argue that KISS's theatrics are what established them initially, that doesn't account for their longevity (or the fact that they weren't all that popular until they released Alive).
KISS has endured because of their music. It's straight forward rock, it's not cerebral, but it's catchy music that appeals to the public. Sure, people know them as the guys with the makeup and the guy with the tongue, but they also know them as the band that wrote songs like Rock n Roll All Night, which is one of the definitive rock anthems of all time.
A lot of people have a tough time looking past the pyros, the makeup, the theatrics, and the unashamed marketing, but beneath all of that, there is a rock band that is as good as any other classic rock band to come out of the '70s. They even managed to survive over a decade just fine without their makeup and costumes.

I'm late to the party on this, but the dismissal of their music  - an opinion that Dave Marsh, the guy on the nominating committee that has made it his apparent life's work (outside of worshipping Bruce Springsteen) shares - is in my opinion woefully shortsighted.  Yes, most of their first three albums were primarily Led Zeppelin and Mountain retreads, with a little Beatles ("Goin' Blind") and Dave Clark Five thrown in for good measure.  But they did not break because of their theatricality.  That came later to a large degree.  Their theatricality actually hurt them at first, because bands would book them to open based on their single ("Kissin' Time", a remake of a 50's song) and then they'd see them and say "WTF?".  They broke because their live shows were incendiary.  I mean, really, really strong.  Look at the first volume of the DVD series and watch the '75 show from, I think it was Winterland.  That is four guys that are hungry and willing to put in the work to make it big.  And it resonated with the fans.  THAT'S why they've lasted so long.  Not Gene's tongue, or the fire, or Ace's exploding guitar.
 
The problem, in my eyes, with this band is three fold:  One, the band never courted critical opinion, and went right to the fans.  For whatever reason, that seems to rub critics the wrong way; there doesn't seem to be any middle ground on that.  Two, the band is not exactly Led Zeppelin or the Beatles in the sense that they are not a concise, 10-year, 10-stellar album band.  You've got to deal with "Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park".  And while the band hasn't apologized to any of it, I think that hurts them from a credibility standpoint.  Three, the band members (read:  Paul and Gene) have not done any of the requisite ass-kissing necessary to court the favor of the nominating committee.  Gene is simply not that likeable a person to the non-fan.  I'm a lifelong Kiss fan and I find him hard to digest most of the time.  And Paul - met him, love him, respect him - nowadays is a walking cliche.  Every interview is a series of quips and soundbites that don't really tell anything.  Anyone see the Springsteen DVD with "Devil's and Dust" where he plays the songs alone in a room and talks about their genesis?  You will NEVER see that from Kiss, EVER. And that rubs people wrong.