Dee Snider has reignited one of KISS’s longest-running debates — the use of original band members’ stage personas by their replacements. The Twisted Sister frontman, known for his outspoken opinions, took to X (formerly Twitter) to comment on the issue, once again stirring discussion among rock fans.
His post responded to a fan questioning why Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer continue to portray the Spaceman and Catman characters, roles originally created by Ace Frehley and Peter Criss. Snider’s remarks, blunt as ever, shed light on what many fans have considered a betrayal of KISS’s original spirit.
This debate, which has persisted for decades, continues to divide fans and musicians alike. For some, the reuse of iconic personas keeps KISS’s brand consistent. For others, including Snider, it represents a loss of individuality and authenticity — a move that prioritizes business over artistry.
Snider’s Candid Response
Snider didn’t hold back in his statement. He suggested that Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer might have preferred to develop their own makeup and characters rather than being made to imitate their predecessors. “Hell, they made Eric change his hair color to match Peter Criss!” he wrote, highlighting the extent to which KISS maintains its visual legacy.
His comments resonated with fans who’ve long questioned why Thayer and Singer couldn’t follow the path of former replacements like Vinnie Vincent and Eric Carr, both of whom had distinct stage identities during their tenure with KISS. Those members managed to honor the band’s legacy while still standing apart as unique contributors.
By contrast, Thayer and Singer’s adoption of the Spaceman and Catman roles has made them lightning rods for criticism. To Snider and others, it feels less like continuation and more like impersonation — a theatrical choice that undermines the individuality of the musicians behind the makeup.
The Legacy and Legalities Behind the Makeup
KISS’s stage personas — The Demon, The Starchild, The Spaceman, and The Catman — have been a vital part of the band’s identity since the 1970s. These characters helped transform KISS into a global brand, merging rock and theater in a way that no band had done before.
However, when Frehley and Criss left the group, the question arose: should their replacements inherit their personas? The issue was not only artistic but also legal. According to Ultimate Classic Rock, both Frehley and Criss signed over the rights to their characters to Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley. This transfer allowed the band’s leaders to reassign those personas to future members, ensuring KISS’s continuity even through lineup changes.
From a business standpoint, this move made sense. KISS became more than a band — it became a franchise with recognizable symbols. Yet this legal ownership of creativity has created a philosophical divide. For artists like Snider, it reduces what was once an expression of personality and rebellion into a replicable costume.
KISS’s Defense and the Ongoing Debate
KISS has repeatedly defended its decision to maintain the original personas, viewing it as essential to the band’s identity and theatrical tradition. Paul Stanley has brushed off critics like Snider, emphasizing that KISS’s success is built on its larger-than-life presentation — one that transcends the individuals wearing the makeup.
Gene Simmons and Stanley’s argument hinges on continuity. To them, KISS’s visual spectacle must remain consistent for fans who come to relive the band’s golden era. The characters, they claim, are timeless symbols — not limited to the men who first donned the paint.
Still, Snider’s criticism taps into a broader debate about authenticity in rock music. Should legacy bands evolve and let new members express themselves, or should they preserve the exact image that made them famous? For Snider, the answer is clear: imitation may keep the show alive, but it also strips away the soul that made KISS revolutionary in the first place.