Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Criteria

Figuring out what it takes to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame seems like an impossible task when looking at the diversity of the artists who are already enshrined. What do they all have in common? What criteria did the Rock Hall Nominating Committee apply when putting together the ballots? There's no easy answer, especially when it comes to something as emotionally charged as music and when the biases of those in charge come into play.

Here are a few passages about the criteria from the Rock Hall's own website:

Leaders in the music industry joined together in 1983 to establish the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. One of the Foundation’s many functions is to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame.

Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.

Terry Stewart, the President of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum (and Nominating Committee member), expands upon that criteria in the letter he sends to fans who seek induction of their favorite artist [Update: Read Stewart's latest letter here.]

Nomination and induction into the Hall of Fame is not about popularity, records sales, which label the group is on, or anything other than the process below. The love for, the evaluation of, and the impact of any artist are subjective questions to be answered by the nominators and the voters. Unlike baseball, football, basketball or hockey, statistics are not relevant. Please read below:

The entire nomination and induction process is coordinated by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation in New York City. Individuals can be inducted in four categories: Performer, Early Influence, Non-Performer and Side-Men. The only formal criteria for the performance category is that an artist has to have had their first record 25 years ago. That said, candidates are reviewed and discussed relative to their impact on this music that we broadly call rock and roll. The innovation and influence of these artists is also critical. Gold records, number one hits, and million sellers are really not appropriate standards for evaluation.

So what do you think the criteria for induction should be? If you were on the Nominating Committee would you be able to set aside your personal taste in evaluating the worthiness of various artists? Should you?

This is the place for you to state the criteria you would use to create the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Comments

832 comments so far (post your own)

Influence and innovation. Period.

I mean, I'd love for a quality barrier to be put in place, but to do so pretty much throws the Hall's worth out the window. Maybe you could put restrictions/penalties against 'worthy' artists who've recorded alot of 'shit' compared to the amount of 'good' they've recorded, such as making Metallica et al. wait around a few years or whatever, but that'd be difficult to control.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 14:00pm


Wow - a whole dedicated posting room for this subject. OZ must have decided on setting this up after we littered up the Tom Jones room with our smoke and beer cans. He should conflate all that stuff there in Sir Tom's place and all the other places it has come up and lay it all here; initiate the brawl again!!

Have at you William and Liam!

Posted by shawn on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 14:24pm


Several Rock Hall voters have told me that they vote based on an atist's body of work/catalog of music too.

Posted by David on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 20:07pm


I think that the identifiability of an artist's work should be a factor in selection. How identifiable with the rock-listening public (especially in the USA, since rock is an American creation) is the artist's work?

Posted by Hazel Phillips on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 21:20pm


"Identifiabilty" is a dangerous factor there, Hazel. I would agree in some cases that it should contibute. However, much caution is advised; I can, unfortunately, identify many Styx, REO Speedwagon, Bon Jovi and even a couple Mr. Mister songs and I wouldn't let those bands use the restroom at the Rock Hall.

But I think I know the point you make.
It must be said that no artist/band should be disqualified because of a lack of identifiability.
As William and Liam have pointed out many times, there is a stockpile of worthy and important artists that the soiled masses that make up the common public have no knowledge of.
Pearls before swine. Radio play is not a pedigree.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 22:33pm


No, but radio play and sales are also not the antithesis of a pedigree either. To me the whole "soiled masses" card that tends to get played strikes me as little more than an attempt to dehumanize and rationalize disrespect towards someone who disagrees with them. Rock 'n' roll was originally largely made for the teenage audience... not exactly the height of the sophisticated society, and it continues to be the music of the blue collar worker, the common man. And one of the reasons it continues to evolve as widely and steadily as it does is because it continues to remain popular with the common public. Yes, there are a lot of great acts who were not properly recognized or respected in their time, but it could be bad promotional campaigns, legal issues, or whatever. It's not always the fault of the "sheeple."

Rock and Roll is the music of the people. You cannot extol that as a virtue and yet whine when you're in the minority regarding an artist. It's just the way it goes sometimes. It doesn't lessen the merit of the artist you want to see get in, but it doesn't increase the merit either.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 02:49am


What the mainstream thinks and what musicians think has been widely different for at least 20 years now. The mainstream is absolutely rotten to the core at the moment, and the current innovation and influence is pretty much all taking place in the indie and underground scenes.

I really don't care what "the people" think, because "the people" listen to Bon Jovi and The Red Hot Chili Peppers. Most people just want mindless, unchallenging entertainment in their music, not art.

And again, I don't think sales or popularity should be taken into account at all, because they give only a tiny indication of influence and no indication of innovation.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 06:15am


Shawn - Why do you always lump Bon Jovi with random where are they now/leftover artists from the 70's and 80s?

Bon Jovi is able to sell out a stadium today and have been relevant for 25 years.

Several artists like King Crimson to Cocteau Twins cannot say that.

Most people visiting the Rock Hall would say "Who is this?" and "I don't know any of their songs" to the strict criteria for artists you, Liam, William and Casper want.

By the way - I am not a Bon Jovi fanatic. I am realistic.

Posted by David on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 09:10am


Sales may not be relevant when deciding who SHOULD be in the Hall, but there is no question that there IS a huge overlap between the top sellers and the Hall of Famers. That's just a fact.

So it's ridiculous to not include that third "I" (along with Innovation and Influence) with the criteria -- that would be Impact.

Posted by mel on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 11:23am


I see what you're saying, but I honestly couldn't give a crap about that argument, David. 25 years is NOTHING in the long-run. You think anyone's gonna be listening to Livin' On A Prayer in a century or more?

Depends on your view of "relevant," really. Literally no one cites Bon Jovi as influence, so musically, no, they aren't relevant at all.

Bon Jovi is different to King Crimson and Cocteau Twins in that they have absolutely zero innovation (whereas the latter have masses each) and marginal influence (again, the latter have masses).

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 12:45pm


"What the mainstream thinks and what musicians think has been widely different for at least 20 years now. The mainstream is absolutely rotten to the core at the moment, and the current innovation and influence is pretty much all taking place in the indie and underground scenes."

That statement is almost a paradox in itself (note I said almost), as the indie and underground scenes traditionally don't have the means to be widespread enough to actually be influential in a wide enough circle. As for the first sentence in that statement, I repeat: rock and roll is the music of the people. Not just the musicians, but the people. Those who keep rock 'n' roll as a popular format of music should not be shunned just because their popularity was their chief means of perpetuating the livelihood of rock 'n' roll. Rock 'n' roll is first and foremost a form of entertainment.

And I wouldn't use the 25 vs. 100 years argument. I've met people who couldn't name a single Beatle. It doesn't mean they're "unwashed," it just means that nothing, not even the Beatles, are forever. Fame may be the fourth triumph and the one defeats Death, but Time is the fifth, and defeats Fame.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 13:42pm


"That statement is almost a paradox in itself (note I said almost), as the indie and underground scenes traditionally don't have the means to be widespread enough to actually be influential in a wide enough circle."

Well, how do you explain The Velvet Undeground? Big Star? Early R.E.M.? Gang of Four? My Bloody Valentine? Sonic Youth? Frank Zappa/The Mothers of Invention? The Kinks? Cocteau Twins?

I mean, that statement kind of stinks of Eau d'ignorance, because if you can't see the amount of innovation and influence that has (and still is) been going on in the underground scenes, then, well....you're ignorant.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:03pm


The Velvet Underground had a big name behind them: Andy Warhol. The Kinks first came at a time when labels were scrambling for anything British, and they'd make the efforts to get them widely distributed. Frank Zappa relied a lot on his touring as well as his genius.

The 80's kind of marked the end of the traditional age, or at least the beginning of the end, because '81 is when Billboard started publishing their Album Rock charts, thus giving a lot of 80's rockers national exposure even if they initially only had enough strength in a regioin to scrape the lower reaches of the Album Rock charts.

And of course, with every rule, there are exceptions and anomalies. They don't disprove the rule outright.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:13pm


So, basically, what you're saying is that you've missed about 40 years of influential underground scenes, is that it?

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:18pm


No, but since I'm not even 30 years old, let alone 40, it's nice to see that people here don't use age as a high horse from which to preach. It's not ignorance just because I disagree with you.

Though I will admit, my experience with the underground and indie label scene when I did college radio *DID* leave a bad taste in my mouth. And my ears. So I'm at least willing to admit I may have a bias there.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:28pm


I just think that you've got some silly notion in your head that popularity = influence, when nothing of the sort is true.

Because in fact, right now, pretty much all the influence (and innovation, although, that's another matter) is going on in the underground.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:36pm


Not exactly. I think popularity is a part of Impact, Impact in turn can lend itself to influence (though not always). Influence and innovation also don't always equal impact. They're all important, imo. I'm just sick of people who think anything mainstream is inherently evil and Billboard is the means by which we measure how much a band has sold out.

To put it succinctly, review Tom Hanks' speech for the Dave Clark Five. He echoed everything my heart screamed as to why the DC5 belong in the Hall of Fame. And a lot of what's missing from music today.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:46pm


Popularity has very little to do with influence and absolutely nothing to do with innovation. Again, you can't take popualrity as an indication of influence because you can't assume that X% of the consumers are musicians.

'00s mainstream = pile of crap.

Seriously, you need to find some '00s indie stuff and see what you've been missing. Start with The New Pornographers, The Decemberists, Arcade Fire and The Go! Team.

ps: I don't agree with the DC5's induction. They have no innovation and relatively small influence, and you could even do better as far as '60s pop acts who aren't in yet (The Hollies and The Zombies being the most obvious to me).

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:01pm


I tried '00s indie back when I worked in college radio. It just didn't touch me at all. Music without a soul, almost. Lyrically, it's like Seinfeld: it's about nothing! Or if it is about something, it's on a soapbox and is intent on bashing the listener over the head until they listen to their message. That's not to say there wasn't some of it that I liked. I did find some pretty cool stuff, but it really was the minority. Indie music is innovative at times, but it often lacks heart and soul. But on the other hand, mainstream is music without its head. Never the twain shall meet, it seems.

The DC5 belong in. Innovation is not a deal-breaker for me. Neither is influence. Nor impact. A band can lack one of the three and even be weak in another and still merit induction if they can make up for it in the third. The DC5 proved that good rock'n'roll didn't require being rebellious. I would put the Hollies and the Moody Blues in as well, and maybe even the Zombies (though the hit singles were pretty much the limit to their stuff. Their album stuff and B-sides really don't argue well for them), but the DC5 deserve the induction they got. Their songs are cannonballs: smooth to the touch with no rough edges, but powerful, both in propulsion and in the explosive energy contained therein.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:20pm


What a load of bullsh*t that first paragraph is. Way to go off on one at an entire crowd of music that you have only the slightest knowledge of. Indie music has no soul? Right, so you can't have heard of The Arcade Fire, then. Empty lyrics? You need to try Patrick Wolf. It's overzealous at the listener? Pick up a Go! Team record.

Your opinion of The DC5 does not mean crap about how much they deserve in. Read this:

"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll."

Nothing, I repeat, nothing in there even suggests that anyone's opinion should be taken as measurement. You like them, I don't. Why should your view be taken over absolutely anyone else's?

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:36pm


"What a load of bullsh*t that first paragraph is. Way to go off on one at an entire crowd of music that you have only the slightest knowledge of. Indie music has no soul? Right, so you can't have heard of The Arcade Fire, then. Empty lyrics? You need to try Patrick Wolf. It's overzealous at the listener? Pick up a Go! Team record."

At least from that paragraph, I can derive that you don't work in sales. lol. Simply put, if what I have sampled does nothing for me, why on Earth would I be compelled to try now? It's really no guarantee that the Arcade Fire, Patrick Wolf or Go! Team will succeed where the Red Telephone, New Wet Kojak, Matthew Good Band, Royal 7, Death By Chocolate, Revolting Cocks, etc. failed. And I do try to tune in the local college rock station every now and then. Unfortunately, little has changed. Catchy stuff, and some nice innovations, but it still doesn't move me. Three good indie-label bands don't justify an entire group any more than three bad ones condemn it.

"'Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.'

Well, I would argue that popularity goes a bit of a ways in contributing to the perpetuation of rock and roll.

"Nothing, I repeat, nothing in there even suggests that anyone's opinion should be taken as measurement. You like them, I don't. Why should your view be taken over absolutely anyone else's?"

I never said mine should. I just stated what I see in the DC5. Do you think your opinion should be taken over absolutely anyone else's?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:52pm


I've heard The Red Telephone, and they suck, and when I first heard Revolting Cocks I thought the guy who was playing it was joking. You must be looking in the wrong places.

You need to look at the indie acts that are going/about to go mainstream and/or major label; that's where the big talents are. Seriously, try pitchforkmedia.com for some recommendations. That site can be pretty condescending at times, but they tend to get the scores right.


"Well, I would argue that popularity goes a bit of a ways in contributing to the perpetuation of rock and roll."

Explain exactly how.

"Do you think your opinion should be taken over absolutely anyone else's?"

No, I think we should be objective in these matters.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:09pm


I think I agree with Phillip a bit on this. I have listened to college radio/indie music and it just never grabbed a hold of me. As for mainstream there is music I like and some that I don't. As for the influence part I look at it this way...someone who listens to a certain type of music and then ends up playing in a band becomes influenced by their favorite music they listened to? Eh?

Posted by dano on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:22pm


"You need to look at the indie acts that are going/about to go mainstream and/or major label; that's where the big talents are. Seriously, try pitchforkmedia.com for some recommendations. That site can be pretty condescending at times, but they tend to get the scores right."

Next time I'm on a computer with sound, I may check it out. Meanwhile, the acts you suggest... what/who do they sound like, what are their lyrics about, can you tell that the lead singer is smiling when s/he sings... these are all questions that you could answer when trying to extol the virtues of a band instead of claiming the shortcomings of others. Just a friendly suggestion.

"'Well, I would argue that popularity goes a bit of a ways in contributing to the perpetuation of rock and roll.'

Explain exactly how."

If it's popular, it's selling (maybe not as much because of file-sharing services, but it still is if nothing else when airplay generates income). If it's selling, the record labels will want to get in on some the action and scout for more rock acts. We often call them wannabes and knockoffs, but they ARE rock acts nonetheless. When more rock acts are getting record deals, they keep putting out more rock music. More rock music being put out... rock 'n' roll is being perpetuated. Also, and a shorter route, if it's popular, that gives incentive to that band to keep putting out that kind of music, thus helping to perpetuate rock 'n' roll.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:22pm


Dano, working in radio, I find that there's something decent in EVERY genre... even modern mainstream country, though I may have to look a little extra hard there. ;)

"As for the influence part I look at it this way...someone who listens to a certain type of music and then ends up playing in a band becomes influenced by their favorite music they listened to? Eh?"

The problem with that line of logic is that for every one that ends up playing in a band, there are how many people who grow up to do other occupations? And of those that do form bands... not every band makes it, even in the local scene, a lot bands just don't go anywhere. It's just a funnel with a very narrow point of exit.

Also, just because a musician likes an artist, you won't always be able to discern influence from the sound of their band. If I start a band and claimed Paul Revere & the Raiders as an influence, but my band's music has more overtones of the Grass Roots, people aren't going to be as likely to take me seriously if I say the Raiders were more influential than the Grass Roots.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:31pm


But every band that makes it big...wouldn't you say that there were bands before them that influenced them to play. Wether they sound like them or not. And even if a band doesn't make it big but is still around playing..someone..somewhere inluenced them..right?

Posted by dano on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:39pm


Yes and no. I know one guy who works in the industry who says he just doesn't take Billy Joel seriously whenever Joel speaks because he just wears his influences on his sleeve. But I think people look more to the music to see where the influences can actually be found. The proof should be in the pudding.

As for those who don't make it big... yeah they were influenced, but if a band only influences small potatoes bands that never get exposure beyond a ten-mile radius of the small potatoes bands' lead singers' mothers' basements (still with me?), that really doesn't speak to that influencing band's merit as much as a band that influences other bands who in turn also make it big.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:48pm


"Shawn - Why do you always lump Bon Jovi with random 'where are they now/leftover' artists from the 70's and 80s?" - David

Because David, they are the Bran Flakes of rock music: bland, unimaginative gruel and they give me loose bowel movements.

Nice to read a chap who thinks more along my line of thought Philip. Liam has much knowledge, as does Willaim but I feel that they're devotion to the Church of I&I is a little cultish.

I agree with you - while sales/airplay alone is certainly not a safe way to evaluate worth, it IS ONE of the ways (as you say = impact) that an artist can aid in the perpetuation of an entertainment medium.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 17:51pm


"but I feel that they're devotion to the Church of I&I is a little cultish."-shawn

But I'm not Rastafarian.

"I agree with you - while sales/airplay alone is certainly not a safe way to evaluate worth, it IS ONE of the ways (as you say = impact) that an artist can aid in the perpetuation of an entertainment medium."-shawn

I'd like to ask once more how it can matter in tandem with something else but not by itself? Wouldn't that make the something else the actual important thing?

Posted by William on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 18:59pm


"As for those who don't make it big... yeah they were influenced, but if a band only influences small potatoes bands that never get exposure beyond a ten-mile radius of the small potatoes bands' lead singers' mothers' basements (still with me?), that really doesn't speak to that influencing band's merit as much as a band that influences other bands who in turn also make it big."-Philip

But that begs the question: What's your idea of "small potatoes" bands? It it 100,000 units? 1 million? I don't think anyone said that every no-name garage band should be taken into account. In fact I think I've said just the opposite on more than one occasion. On the whole, though, there's a lot of middle ground between garage acts self-releasing albums burnt on Office Depot blank discs and mega-successful arena acts. You don't have to go triple-platinum to carve out a successful career in music. Yo La Tengo's been kicking around for 24 years and 13 albums. I'd call them successful, but I wouldn't say they "made it big," because that's inherently limiting. Lots of has-beens "made it big."

And yeah, there's the odd band that not only failed to make it big, but crumbled entirely. There's thousands of them, but out of those thousands, at least a few with something original tend to be found by adventurous souls who then say to themselves "Wow, I've never heard anything like this before." Some of these new followers will be successful, and a few might even "make it big" (Kurt Cobain was a huge Vaselines fan). So if you can be successful without being huge, be influential and innovative with doing either, and make it big without being anything, in what was does success measure importance?

Posted by William on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 19:15pm


Well, first I feel I must disappoint Shawn a little. I would put Bon Jovi in. Hair metal WAS the dominant face of rock 'n' roll before Nirvana came and laid waste to anything that stood in its path (just generalizing the timeline here). And I feel it should be acknowledged. More that that, though, as a True Son of The Midwest (I think Billy Joel called us "Children of the Corn" lol), I love hair metal. I know, I know, gag and curse all you want. It's a genetic thing amongst us true Midwesterners. We loves us some hair metal... even the Black, hardcore rap fans from this area love to dance to "Unskinny Bop."

William, I was addressing Dano with the remark, and I didn't get the impression that he was excluding every garage band. So yeah, I meant them... those who only get to release one album, and that one only sells about 500 units, if they're lucky, and never get any airplay except for the specially designated shows on the college rock station dedicated to local talent. Still kinda new, so I'm just trying to feel everyone out here. Give me time and I won't have to be uber-literal anymore.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 22:00pm


Phillip your right. I was basically adressing every band out there. But the ones that get most of the airplay or tour a lot I would say influence other "to be" bands. Some kid sitting at home listening to whatever song on the radio/tv decides man this is cool stuff I wanna play. I am a hair metal fan by far but I do enjoy other music (but I don't think I have the same taste as William does). But I don't agree that in order to influence or be innovative your pretty much have to be an underground/indie band.

Posted by dano on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 23:32pm


Philip, I forgive you your sin of bad taste by loving Bon Jovi and hair metal. You and Dameon shall be fast friends now, esp if your love of spande rock includes his fav whipping boys, Def Lepard.
You and I still share a core philosophy that there are more doors into a rock hall than those with Innovation or Influence nameplates.

Wiiliam, to answer your question (again but this time in another stubborn form...):
"I'd like to ask once more how (can sales/airplay) matter in tandem with something else but not by itself? Wouldn't that make the something else the actual important thing?" -W

I did not mean that it HAD to be in tandem with I or I - could be, but not a prerequisite. Philip put it perfectly in his 4-26 @ 15:20 post:

"Innovation is not a deal-breaker... Neither is influence. Nor impact. A band can lack one of the three and even be weak in another and still merit induction if they can make up for it in the third."

Exactly.

Emblematic of this approach would probably be the case for the Doobie Brothers, whom I believe belong in the Hall.
Innovative? Not so much. They commanded their own nice fusion of R&B, hard rock, country, blues, bluegrass, boogie woogie, but probably innovated nothing.
Influencial? I have no idea - I have not found nor assembled a litany (how many, btw, would not elicit a scoff of "Is that all ya got?"?), though I can only assume they did influence many a musician.

But their claim to the Hall lies in their simple Impact on the development and perpetuation of rock music because of their popularity, airplay, sales and ubiquity for about a 10 year period from 1972-1982. I could list their numbers and all their great hit singles, but you'll just tell me that has nothing to do with I or I --- yea, and so what?
Here's my stance on artists that charted and sold like the Doobies did,in that time, - before the crap of the 00's, they made an IMPACT and did perpetuate rock - they must then be given the SUCK test - as in, did they? If they sucked by general consensus, they are probably right out.

There are very few eceptions to this law - those acts that sucked but trump that with unfortunate sheer force of presence. I am thinking of KISS, possibly Journey.

Note that in no way does this detract from the merits and cases for the Replacements, Brian Enos and Nick Drakes of the rock wilderness. They stand true and tall by much different measure.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 23:58pm


Thanks Shawn. Just remember, though, if you take a trip to the Midwest better have a Poison CD handy as camouflage. *just in case* (and I loved "Hysteria" and "Adrenalize" growing up. lol)

I think there's a fourth pillar too... actually being a rock 'n' roll group. That's something else the DC5 and the Doobies (at least in their earlier stuff) had. Which does bring us to the question of defining it... I like to think of it in the same way a Supreme Court justice once described something else: "I can't define it, but I know it when I [encounter] it." For those who clucked at Madonna's induction because she wasn't rock 'n' roll even though she had influence and impact in spades, the DC5 were someone who should have been in because other than Mellencamp and arguably the Ventures, the DC5 were the act on this year's ballot that you would look at and say, "Yes, THEIR style was in fact rock 'n' roll." (I know, some disagree, just how I feel about it).

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 00:27am


If being rock and roll was actually criteria you couldn't make any inductions past 1972. You either take the name totally literally or not at all.

I'll say it again: I think "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" was a stupid choice for a name and only chosen as tourist bait.

A better choice? "Contemporary Music Hall of Fame" or "Modern Music Hall of Fame."

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 02:20am


"Hair metal WAS the dominant face of rock 'n' roll before Nirvana came and laid waste to anything that stood in its path (just generalizing the timeline here)." - Philip

Only from a sales and popularity aspect. As far as influence goes, hair-metal is expendable, and as for innovation, well, I won't even go there (parce qu'il n'y a rien). Musically, I'd give the post-punk/alternative rise as being dominant, especially in the long-run.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 02:26am


Hey guys, I'd really love an explanation of this 'sales--->impact' crappage that I'm sure I won't agree with. Exactly what is the 'impact' supposed to be (on)?

Because in all honestly, this justs sounds like some lame excuse at getting the fav'rites in the Hall. Am I right?

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 02:34am


"You either take the name totally literally or not at all."

And if I refuse to be confined by just those two choices? There's an ocean of possibility between those two ends... an ocean big enough for a fleet of yellow submarines.

"Only from a sales and popularity aspect."

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was referring to. Chiefly because it's the most tangible and measurable standard. Not always the best, but oh well.

"Hey guys, I'd really love an explanation of this 'sales--->impact' crappage that I'm sure I won't agree with. Exactly what is the 'impact' supposed to be (on)?"

Sales translating into impact is pretty much along the same wavelength that I offered as far as sales and popularity aiding in the perpetuation of rock'n'roll. And I'm referring to Impact on popular culture, how many ears are being reached, because rock'n'roll was and is primarily a form of pop culture, and it's not a term of shame.

"Because in all honestly, this justs sounds like some lame excuse at getting the fav'rites in the Hall. Am I right?"

Not by a long shot, though you could argue that's what the current members of the nominating board are doing. There are bands that I don't care for that I believe deserve induction (RHCP, Dave Matthews Band, the Miracles, etc.) and there are artists I like that I don't think should ever be inducted (Jay And The Americans, Vogues, Village People, etc.).

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 03:15am


"And if I refuse to be confined by just those two choices? There's an ocean of possibility between those two ends... an ocean big enough for a fleet of yellow submarines."

No, because rock and roll is specific to the '40s and '50s genre of music. Your thinking of rock specifically, but 'rock' and 'rock and roll' are not synonymous. Pretty much no artists post '72 can be consiidered rock and roll.

"Sales translating into impact is pretty much along the same wavelength that I offered as far as sales and popularity aiding in the perpetuation of rock'n'roll. And I'm referring to Impact on popular culture, how many ears are being reached, because rock'n'roll was and is primarily a form of pop culture, and it's not a term of shame."

The ONLY way of "perpetuating rock and roll" is by innovating sounds and influencing musicians. Rock and roll in itself isn't around anymore, and rock isn't primarily a form of pop culture now.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 03:35am


Well, we could argue until eternity and not agree on the definition of rock 'n' roll. I like what Billy Joel said... it's still rock 'n' roll to me. As to the only other points:

"The ONLY way of 'perpetuating rock and roll' is by innovating sounds and influencing musicians."

I would disagree. You can perpetuate it by continuing to play the music of the 50's and 60's, just as you can perpetuate a story by the continued retelling of it. It wouldn't *evolve*, but perpetuating isn't necessarily the same as evolving. The point is to keep it in the hearts and minds of listeners, which can be done through innovation of new sounds, influencing others to become musicians, or through continuing in your own successful style.

"rock isn't primarily a form of pop culture now."

WTF is that even supposed to mean? If you're referring to pop vs. indie, then you misunderstood what I meant, and I apologize... I simply mean rock was and is primarily form of entertainment, which is the foundation of what constitutes "pop culture."

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 03:57am


"You can perpetuate it by continuing to play the music of the 50's and 60's, just as you can perpetuate a story by the continued retelling of it."

You're talking about influencing and following without realising. As a musician, you're being influenced by whatever '60s act you care to play the music of, and therefore it's said '60s act that is doing the perpetuating. If you were to influence other musicians, then yes, you yourself would be perpetuating rock.

"I simply mean rock was and is primarily form of entertainment, which is the foundation of what constitutes "pop culture.""

I knew what you meant, just that you're forgetting that rock (at least part of it) has been a form of art for some time now, and most will tell you that it has been since Dylan's Blonde on Blonde. My Bloody Valentine, Brian Eno, The Velvet Underground and thousands of others didn't (and don't) make music primarily as a form of entertainment.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:07am


lol so now we disagree on the definition of "perpetuating" but that's fine. I simply disagree with how you define it.

"I knew what you meant, just that you're forgetting that rock (at least part of it) has been a form of art for some time now, and most will tell you that it has been since Dylan's Blonde on Blonde. My Bloody Valentine, Brian Eno, The Velvet Underground and thousands of others didn't (and don't) make music primarily as a form of entertainment."

Forgive me for being blunt, but that doesn't mean squat. What matters is how the end user is using it. They may be creating rock music for the purpose of creating art, but as long as people are using for entertainment, it's entertainment. Even if their idea of entertainment is stimulation through indulgence in the arts. It's still entertainment. And no artist can escape it.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:20am


To be frank, "entertainment" isn't what the Hall should be looking at, because it isn't measurable.

I was talking about the MAKING of rock and pop, not how they are viewed by consumers. Rock and pop were initially made as forms of entertainment, and not taken seriously by critics. It has since become an actual form of art. Whether you, me or the next guy "enjoys" this doesn't actually make a blind bit of difference. Of course, not everyone actually makes artwork, else we wouldn't have to endure sub-mediocre tripe like Bon Jovi or Def Leppard.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:37am


Entertainment is measurable. That's how Billboard, Arbitron, Nielsen, etc. work. You may not be able to measure the amount of joy and pleasure you give people, but that's another matter. And entertainment should matter because being entertaining is one way that something gets heard enough times to influence others. Hearing it once and making an impact is possible, but not likely. That's not to say something can't be art AND entertainment. There's plenty of evidence to prove that it can, but when you rule out the entertainment value, you pretty much make it a convention for performance art types of music. Would you put Yoko Ono in the Hall? Or Penderecki? Phillip Glass? Because that's where the "art is the ultimate end-all be-all" argument leads. You need to acknowledge art AND entertainment in healthy proportions to get the artists that we hail as worthy of induction into the Hall. The two pieces need each other.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:53am


"Entertainment is measurable. That's how Billboard, Arbitron, Nielsen, etc. work."

You misspelled "popularity." How do you know every person that bought a #1 album enjoyed it? Never heard of the Rallying To The Winner effect? What about Metallica's St. Anger? That went #1, and yet pretty much everyone I know told me it sucked.

"And entertainment should matter because being entertaining is one way that something gets heard enough times to influence others."

Again, you misspelled "popularity." Being popular does not mean you will be influential to musicians. I'd be surprised if yu could scrape more than 10 artists influenced by Bon Jovi, and they are popular. Same for Britney Spears, Cher, Lionel Richie etc.

If you want to measure influence, measure it directly. Don't be lazy by letting sales be an indication.

"Would you put Yoko Ono in the Hall? Or Penderecki? Phillip Glass? Because that's where the "art is the ultimate end-all be-all" argument leads."

Yes, I'd induct Penderecki, what with all the relevance he has within contemporary music and all. I'm choking on all this sarcasm!

You could make a case for the other two, especially Ono.

"You need to acknowledge art AND entertainment in healthy proportions to get the artists that we hail as worthy of induction into the Hall."

Who's "we"? Why do we have to acknowledge "entertainment" (you mean sales)? I mean, assuming you do mean sales, there's already an organisation that recognizes it: it's called Billboard.

And supposing that you do mean entertainment, how do we measure that? I've already shown how sales can't show what is entertaining, but why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 05:15am


The problem with the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony is that it has become a TV show with time constraints and performances. They should go back to just inducting artists and giving induction speeches, with no performances except for the all-star jam at the end, like they used to do the late 80s. They inducted a lot more artists per year back then:

1986 - 16 inducted
1987 - 23 inducted - BEST YEAR EVER!
1988 - 09 inducted
1989 - 09 inducted

1990 - 16 inducted
1991 - 11 inducted
1992 - 12 inducted
1993 - 11 inducted
1994 - 10 inducted
1995 - 09 inducted
1996 - 09 inducted
1997 - 10 inducted
1998 - 08 inducted
1999 - 10 inducted

2000 - 14 inducted
2001 - 11 inducted
2002 - 08 inducted
2003 - 09 inductes
2004 - 08 inducted
2005 - 07 inducted
2006 - 07 inducted
2007 - 05 inducted - WORST YEAR EVER!
2008 - 08 inducted

240 inducted in 23 years. Each band is counted as 1.

AVERAGE # OF INDUCTEES PER YEAR - 10

I believe that all major charting musicians from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s have to be inducted because they were all a part of the foundation of Rock and Roll. YES, 50s-60s = GROUNDBREAKING! 50s-60s = FOUNDATION! Without them, nothing else would have happened!

INDUCT NOW!:

The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Kingston Trio, Herman’s Hermits, The Searchers, Peter, Paul and Mary, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Love, Roxy Music, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Hall & Oates, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, INXS, 10,000 Maniacs

Patsy Cline, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Randy Newman, Barry Manilow, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Joe Cocker, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Todd Rundgren, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck

Quincy Jones, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 06:58am


What about Mott the Hoople and Gary Lewis & the Playboys??

Posted by joker on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 09:53am


Now this is what I call a good conversation. Philip and Shawn - thank you for many of the points you made. I don't see how pure innovation and direct influence can be the only benchmarks for the HoF. I still think perpetuate is the key word and you don't have to be either to do this.

Shawn - you got to let D.L. go, please. Yes, I believe Lep deserves consideration for all the reasons I have mentioned in the past, but that is not a vote from me of the whole 80's scene. Yes, I enjoyed the music. It was fun, especially in the clubs, but I only think a handful of those bands deserve any consideration (Queensryche comes to mind) and IMO, there are a lot of bands who came before that which I would like to see inducted first (Purple, Cheap Trick, K.C., ELP, etc.).

Liam - serious question for you. Don't you think that all RnR bands are underground up to the point where someone makes their music accessible to some sort of listening outlet (radio, internet, etc.)?

Joker - Mott the Hoople - why not! Great band, but i doubt it.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 11:45am


" If being rock and roll was actually criteria you couldn't make any inductions past 1972. You either take the name totally literally or not at all.
I think "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" was a stupid choice for a name...
A better choice? "Contemporary Music Hall of Fame" or "Modern Music Hall of Fame." -Liam

Agree and disagree with you there Liam. The phrase "Rock and Roll" is prickly and brings about outrage in some breeds of purists when it evolves and welcomes Madonnas, Run DMCs, even James Taylors, Paul Simons and Bee Gees and Earth, Wind & Fires.

But I Contemporary or Modern just sound to me whatthey are: words so beige and impotent in their lack of controversy as to be devoid of meaning, much less attractiveness.

I think people need to justexpand their perceptions of Rock and take off the blinders, open up a bit.

Although I have to say it is inconsistent to posit R&B, funk and even now rap/hip-hop as natural brothers of rock, but to see country as a different species when obviously country is very much an influence and ingredient in countless rock and roll songs and styles.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 11:50am


"The ONLY way of "perpetuating rock and roll" is by innovating sounds and influencing musicians." -Liam

Afteral this conversation, you STILL are locked stubbornly into pretending to not see what blokes like Philip and I mean when we talk about Impact and perpetuation of rock (rock-n-roll - whatever - fukking semantic games there..).

P-E-R-P-E-T-U-A-T-I-O-N
Come - freakin - ON already!
Where is the danger you see in opening up to more than this rigid, scholarly insistence on scientific documentation of Innovation or Influence by a peer reviewed medical journal.
Which, by the way, I will submit yet again, can be subjective itself; accurate possibly, yes, but nonetheless subjective.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:00pm


After justnow reading through the entirety of Liam's and Philip's volley, the great divide is now very clear, and why we shall go no furher without some kind of a bridge:
Liam's paradigm completely negates the value of the common listener - the fan, the consumer, the populus of popular/rock music - for him the lastner has no relevance in the context of Perpetuation.

Philip and I keep pointing to the broad nature of that word and how crazy it is not to recognize how popular/rock music is nourished and continued by airplay, sales and ubiquity. But for Liam, Impact on other musicians is the only respectable and relevant measure.

That's it. I understand and respect his viewpoint, but disagree wholeheartedly and think him a bit nuts. Were we to embrace his approach, the Hall would quickly become a self-absorbed pedantic study of "Art". Sorry Liam, but I find it comically absurd to treat popularity as irrelevant, even treat it rudely as the white trash component of a naturally popular medium and to try to "legitimize" rock only if we see it as art, only consider what other musicians think. What a self-involved load of hooey that would be ultimately just collapse in on itself under the weight of all that grandiose.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:23pm


I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of "It is so because it is," without explaining any of how it works.

Well, I can't see anything within the 'Labels Encouragement' crap, because even if the label didn't pick the group up, the group would still be making the music. How should a bands label status affect the music their making? All that argument proves is that 'Sales = Sales'.

You need to explain how sales on their own have impact, because you haven't already. Explain exactly how The Doobie Brothers impacted rock without innovating or influencing. How do sales affect anything other than sales (ignoring the very minor connection between that and influence).

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:26pm


Yeah, I mean, God forbid Rock should be remembered as an art-form in centuries to come.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:43pm


"..why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 05:15am"

Because as a practical concern, you have an umpteen million $ complex with future expansion in the works that takes $$$$ per annum to maintain. How do you propose we finance this? By forbidding the dumb public from entering?? By charging each of the 50 musicians that visit the place every month or year $10,000-20,000 for their tour? I know, we could have the inductees pitch in with the chores to save some money. We'll have Johnny Rotten be the greeter, the surviving members of the Grateful Dead pass out refreshments of brownies and Kool-Aid, dress up Debbie Harry in a maid's outfit to dust off the trophies, assign the Police to security detail, put Steve Tyler on the snow blower and let Paul McCartney fix holes on the roof when the rain gets in.

Posted by joker on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:54pm


I think you're underestimating the size of Pitchfork's reader base, joker. Considering that that site has been shown to be able to either decrease and/or increase a group's commercial success, I'd imagine it's pretty big.

There are more people giving a crap about influence and innovation than you realise. Whether there is enough to keep the Hall afloat is anyone's guess, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 13:04pm


Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right? So in that case, there should be no correlation between the innovators/influencers and the top sellers...

So how do you explain that a large proportion of the top sellers of all time are in the Hall of Fame? Just a crazy coincidence? If the Hall has it wrong, then who among the top sellers are you kicking out?

And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. Exactly NOBODY here is saying that. All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists (like VU of course), but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them.

Posted by mel on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 17:17pm


Ok, kind of a touch-and-go response trying to reply to as much as I can with as few words as possible, so if I omit some seemingly small point that means the world to you, sorry and tough.

"I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of 'It is so because it is,' without explaining any of how it works."

The problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that it is regardless of our ability to explain it.

"You need to explain how sales on their own have impact, because you haven't already. Explain exactly how The Doobie Brothers impacted rock without innovating or influencing. How do sales affect anything other than sales (ignoring the very minor connection between that and influence)."

We did. If it sells, it's a bandwagon that other companies will jump on to cash in on. Simple example: Nirvana. While you can talk about the evolution of the indie scene until that point, the fact still is that once Nirvana broke big, companies and labels scrambled to get a piece of the pie that was the Seattle garage/grunge scene. In a way it still affects us and influences us today. Some of those other bands that had been around before Nirvana broke big finally broke big themselves because the labels wanted to sell what they were offering. And even if you call it a "very minor connection", as you parenthetically did, you can't just wave it off, because it's there.

"Well, I can't see anything within the 'Labels Encouragement' crap, because even if the label didn't pick the group up, the group would still be making the music. How should a bands label status affect the music their making? All that argument proves is that 'Sales = Sales'."

The wider the distribution, the wider you can cast your nets of influence and the better chance you have of catching more fish, and therefore influencing them.

"Yeah, I mean, God forbid Rock should be remembered as an art-form in centuries to come."

And God forbid that Rock be remembered as something that gave people joy and happiness. Because clearly those are bad things to have.

""..why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?"

Nice try to resurrect the "unwashed masses" argument, but it has no credence with me. Claiming "unwashed masses" is usually just another way of saying "I have personality issues that forbid me from exercising even the most basic form of respect for my fellow man if they don't agree with me about this." It's also a weak argument because you're just as likely to be included among those you claim to be above in some respect or another. I could get all pretentious and snotty because I absolutely loathe not just 00's mainstream music, but also what "American Idol" has done to both TV and radio. But I don't. There are things I like that aren't exactly haute couture. Instead, I choose to just get myself together and join the human race.

When you sing along to Patti Smith's "People Have The Power", on the chorus, you don't have time to interject "except for those who disagree with us" before it's time to belt out "PEOPLE HAVE THE PO-WER!" again. Now, I'm not saying they have as much credibility as other musicians, or producers, insiders, historians, but that doesn't make them idiots.

As for Ono, I like her, but wouldn't put her in. Her only influence that you can call hers is with other performance and avant-garde artistes, and that just doesn't extend very widely. Her current popularity is due more to the talent of electronica producers and remixers.

On a positive note, though, I am taking your advice and trying some of the stuff you recommended. Autolux didn't agree with me (I don't mean this as a derogatory statement... it sounds like music made for stoners or at least to be enjoyed more fully when high), but so far, there's hope for the Go! Team.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 17:22pm


Philip - Applause! Same for you Shawn.

Liam - as much as I respect your opinion as to why innovation and influence are the King and Queens of benchmarking, it is just not possible for this subject to be so black and white. If we feel that Rock is as much an art form as anything else, then we have to appreciate the fact that art is usually liked or disliked. Liked = sales. Sales leads to accessibility and accessibility leads to possible influence. I think you are correct when stating that a lot of people are looking for bands that have something new to give us. But I think that people are looking more for something that they enjoy. If that something is also new and influential, then great. But if it is nothing more than a reinvention of something done 20 years earlier with maybe a slight new twist, then that can be just as important in perpetuating the continued success and growth of the art form.

I have waited 5 months to see this conversation and I thank you all.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 17:48pm


"I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of "It is so because it is," without explaining any of how it works." -Liam

My God Man, you can't be serious by this point.
C'mon - are you being intentionally obtuse now?
If this difference in our paradigms has been distilled down now and diagnosed as simply the difference in how we define perpetuate and how you are willing to define it (a musician context only) then let's get some clarity and move onto another phase of this conversation.

But how long will we keep coming back to this same loop of questions from you?

Philip has explained how our reasoning works in at least 3 different ways that I just went back and saw and I have a couple times now.

Sales and airplay >> popularity >>> more ears reached >>> marketing of an artist to the listening world at large >>> more interest in music >>> not only new musicians inspired but demand for more of that artists creations and more music in general>>> perpetuation.

Hopefully, that particular artist is quality and has something other than crass sales to offer the world of rock/popular music. If not (see Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Celine Dione, Bon Jovi, Loverboy, et al..) then they are judged accordingly in the court of subjectivity. Fear not that duty.

Also: At the most fundamental level,
sales >>> is the goal of almost all aspiring artists because they need money to live too. Financial success not only prompts them (perpetuates) to continue creating this rock music but allows them to do so. Simple equation.


I too, like Mel am perplexed at your belief that ackowledging that rock is an amalgam of art and entertainment is devil talk - why are tey so damn mutually exclusive to you? You are setting up a false dichotomy which we will reject over and over; from whence comes this fevered quest to preserve the homor of your fair maiden Art?

As mel points out, who here is giving the finger to Innovation & Influence and advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction? Exactly NOBODY here is saying that.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 18:09pm


"But if it is nothing more than a reinvention of something done 20 years earlier with maybe a slight new twist, then that can be just as important in perpetuating the continued success and growth of the art form." -Dameon

Quite right Dameon, and could not have stated it better. That's spot on.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 18:12pm


How I would structure the 2009 vote/induction parameters:

- Outsource one nominee ballot and induction spot to Pitchfork. (1 spot)

- The Cure, Sonic Youth, The Replacements, Husker Du, Depeche Mode, Joy Division
(voters instructed to choose 2 of these 6)

- King Crimson, Genesis, Rush, Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, Yes
(voters instructed to choose 2 of these 6)

- Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, Big Star, Nick Drake, The Stooges, Roxy Music
(voters instructed to choose 1 of these 6)

- Alice Cooper, Steve Miller Band, Chicago, Joe Cocker, Jeff Beck, T.Rex
(voters choose 2 of these 6)

Total of 8 inductees.

Also: change the eligibilty threshhold to 20 years since first recording, back from 25 years.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 09:44am


"Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right? So in that case, there should be no correlation between the innovators/influencers and the top sellers..." - mel

The link between sales and influence is so small it might aswell not be there. In the '50s and '60s, before rock became an artform, artists could rely less on substance and more on publicity to be influential (eg The Monkees).

There is absolutely no correlation between innovation and sales whatsoever.

"All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers." - mel

Which assumes that the Hall is actually metting its own standards (I&I), which it isn't.

"All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists (like VU of course), but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them."

Right, so by that logic, Lionel Richie, Phil Collins, Boyz II Men, Meat Loaf, 'N Sync, The Spice Girls, Bon Jovi, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, George Michael and Bryan Adams must be among the most influential artists, unless you feel the need to shout "ANOMALY!" Going the other way, how do you explain:

Bad Brains
Big Black
Big Star
The Birthday Party
Cocteau Twins
The Cure (before they went big)
Dead Kennedys
Dinosaur Jr.
Brian Eno
Fugazi
Gang of Four
Happy Mondays
Husker Du
JAMC
Joy Division
Killing Joke
The Kinks
Meat Puppets
Minor Threat
Minutemen
My Bloody Valentine
Pavement
Pixies
R.E.M. (before they went big)
The Replacements
Siouxsie & The Banshees
The Smiths
Sonic Youth
The Stone Roses
Talk Talk
Television
Violent Femmes
Wire and
XTC?

None of whom's influential work was "best-selling." I'll give it that The Cure and R.E.M., but they had influential stuff when they were lesser known (Pornography, Murmr). Oh wait, there all anomalies, right?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:14am


"If it sells, it's a bandwagon that other companies will jump on to cash in on. Simple example: Nirvana. While you can talk about the evolution of the indie scene until that point, the fact still is that once Nirvana broke big, companies and labels scrambled to get a piece of the pie that was the Seattle garage/grunge scene. In a way it still affects us and influences us today. Some of those other bands that had been around before Nirvana broke big finally broke big themselves because the labels wanted to sell what they were offering. And even if you call it a "very minor connection", as you parenthetically did, you can't just wave it off, because it's there."

So record labels make music all of a sudden? Neat.

Even if the label didn't pick up the group, the group would STILL be playing the music. I'm not completely dismissing that there are a certain few artists whose influence was aided by huge commercial success, but how many artists got in the same position as Nirvana?

"As for Ono, I like her, but wouldn't put her in. Her only influence that you can call hers is with other performance and avant-garde artistes, and that just doesn't extend very widely. Her current popularity is due more to the talent of electronica producers and remixers."

It actually sounds like you trying to discredit underground influence right there.

"The wider the distribution, the wider you can cast your nets of influence and the better chance you have of catching more fish, and therefore influencing them."

But that doesn't mean you WILL have those followers. All it shows is that your CHANCES of having followers will increase, but you haven't given a concrete rule that the followers will be there. With that, you're forced to assume that the followers are there. Why not make it easy on yourself and actually find out who actually followed the artist?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:18am


"more interest in music >>> not only new musicians inspired"

And that's the assumption that breaks your chain. You cannot assume that any proportion of the consumers are musicians.

But, more importantly, even if an artist IS cloned due to large sales, what about the clones that undoubtedly make it big? For every one Pearl Jam there are around thirty Nickelbacks that enter the mainstream (and often stay there). How do you deal with them, without bringing your own opinion of the music into it?

"sales >>> is the goal of almost all aspiring artists because they need money to live too"

Not all artists make music for money ("isn't it queer?"). Yes, many do, but it's not everyone's priority.

"I too, like Mel am perplexed at your belief that ackowledging that rock is an amalgam of art and entertainment is devil talk - why are tey so damn mutually exclusive to you?"

Strawman, because I never said the two were mutually exclusive. You enjoy a band. Great. Lots of people enjoy that band. Even better. But exactly why they should be put into a museum is something baffling.

This is supposed to be a HoF that includes the artists that "perpetuate rock and roll." You see, you're little rule with the sales doesn't work, since I've shown that one stage is an assumption.

Also, you won't be around forever. You can't "prove" that something is 'bad.' If Nickelback sold alot of records, how do you keep them out without killing your reputation? You can't just lump extra criteria (like your opinion) onto sales, otherwise, what's the point?


You either take sales on their own or you don't ake them at all. And since there are already plenty of organisations that recognise sales, I'd go for the latter.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:51am


"The link between sales and influence is so small it might aswell not be there." -Liam

In your list of influential artists, I couldn't seem to find any artist that had sold less than 10,000 albums. Can you list them please? Because by your logic, there are loads of them to choose from. There should at least be as many that have sold over 10 million albums.

And nice try twisting my argument into "sales = influence." That's not what I said at all.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:52am


Liam, you act like museums are places which are put together by robots documenting history. You don't think there are curators in an art museum? You don't think they apply some editorial control of what gets exhibited?

Why else do you keep asking for Pitchfork to take over the process other than the fact you think their taste is more closely aligned with your own? They wouldn't be any more "objective" than the current committee. They are just coming from a newer perspective.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:59am


10,000 albums as the maximum? Ridiculous.

You said "best-selling" artists, and NONE of them were that whn they were doing their influential works (or at all, in most of the cases). I listed 34, each one managing to have masses of influence either without or before going mainstream.

You tried to make an argument that best-selling artists were the most influential, and then turned around and said that when an 'underground' group was influential (The Velvet Underground), they were an anomalie, which is exactly the same as saying Sales = Influence.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 11:04am


Why is 10,000 maximum "ridiculous"? You're saying sales have no relationship to influence, so there should be an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. There are way more artists who sold < 10,000 than sold over 10 million, so what's the problem?

If 10,000 is ridiculous, then what number isn't ridiculous? 50,000? 100,000? Or are is there a flaw in your logic?

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 11:44am


What makes bands like VU so special (and many of the ones you listed), is that they were able to make an impact in spite of sales. They're the needle in the haystack (and it's a large haystack). The odds of that happening are small (certainly < 1%). Now, if your sales are over 10 million, the evidence suggests your odds of being influential increase (maybe 15%), if being a member of the Hall is any indictation (and it doesn't have to be, the artists can stand on their own, but we are talking about the Hall of Fame after all).

NOTE! Selling millions of albums does not increase your chances to 100%! The 85% non-influentials are the silly examples Liam trots out to try to put a hole in the sales argument.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:19pm


Let's look at your original post:

"Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right?"

No, I'm saying that there is only ever a very small link between sales and influence.

"So in that case, there should be no correlation between the innovators/influencers and the top sellers..."

Yes. There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that links innovation and sales.

"So how do you explain that a large proportion of the top sellers of all time are in the Hall of Fame? Just a crazy coincidence? If the Hall has it wrong, then who among the top sellers are you kicking out?"

I explain it by saying that the Hall is getting it wrong and has been for a while. The HoF has to sell tickets to keep itself running and make profits, and the most obvious way of doing that is by putting recognizable acts in there.

Who do you think the guy on the street would rather see when he makes his visit: Sonic Youth or The DC5?

I do not care about a band's popularity at all when it comes to this. The Beatles are highly influential, they sold alot of records, therefore they deserve in. Sonic Youth are highly influential and innovative, they didn't sell anywhere near as many records, they deserve in. I would kick out any artists who I deem to be in simply because of the fact they were/are popular.

"And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. Exactly NOBODY here is saying that."

Apart from Shawn and Philip.

"All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists (like VU of course), but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them."

Assuming that the Hall is getting it right, when there's a backlog of at least 50 deserving artists waiting for induction, which will undoubtedly grow over the years. Feel free to track down a backlog queue I made somewhere to see whether you agree with my picks.



"Why is 10,000 maximum "ridiculous"?"

Because you were making a link between best-selling artists and most-influential artists, and I'm pretty sure you've got to get quite a bit above 10,000 to be considered anywhere near "best-selling."

"You're saying sales have no relationship to influence, so there should be an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum."

Yes, ofcourse, and there is.

"If 10,000 is ridiculous, then what number isn't ridiculous? 50,000? 100,000? Or are is there a flaw in your logic?"

Well, Wikipedia says that best-selling artists have all sold above 50 million copies, so I'd go by that. You could push it down to 30 mill., but anymore would just seem ridiculous to me.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:28pm


"Because you were making a link between best-selling artists and most-influential artists, and I'm pretty sure you've got to get quite a bit above 10,000 to be considered anywhere near "best-selling."" -Liam

You must have misunderstood my question. You're the one claiming that there is an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. So I'm asking you to prove that by naming some influencers who have sold less than 10,000 (or 50,000 if you wish) albums. Who are they?

I'm saying that to make an impact at that low of a sales threshold is nearly impossible, but it can happen if the planets are aligned just so.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:43pm


This always comes back to what you are willing to include in your definition of Perpetuate, Liam.
I find it myopic to the point of baffling.

Influence between musicians is a pillar - YES - a solid touchstone indeed- we all acknowledge that as gospel and do not challenge it NOR are stating that it must be correlated to sales.

Furthermore, mel may have inferred it, but I do not think that sales >>> influence on musicians necessarily, other than the COMMON SENSE observation that the more widely an artist is distributed, the better the chance that it will be heard by a fellow musician. Your assertion that we have no basis to assume that any portion of consumers may also be musicians is simply contrary nonsense and flys in the face of common logic. C'mon. That's what breaks my chain? Who's a strawman?





"But, more importantly..what about the clones that undoubtedly make it big? For every one Pearl Jam there are around thirty Nickelbacks that enter the mainstream (and often stay there). How do you deal with them, without bringing your own opinion of the music into it?" - Liam

I deal with them by the suck test I mentioned and am not shy from being subjective when it is time. Let's reread a key sentence from that letter from Terry Stewart - you know, the one that sites I & I as pillars ALSO?:
"The love for, the evaluation of, and the impact of any artist are subjective questions to be answered by the nominators and the voters."
-Terry Stewart

As a board member I would not be squeamish to admit when it was time for a darker shade of subjectivity. That's the nature of the beast.

In fact, do you understand that when you decise to only salute the flags of I & I, isolated as the only pillars, you have committed a preemptive form of subjectivity? It may be indirect, but personal in philosophy nonetheless.


"Not all artists make music for money ("isn't it queer?"). Yes, many do, but it's not everyone's priority." - Liam

What a phantasmal view that is. Are there Hobbits and wee fairies playing the lute and harp for kind passer-bys in this land of the hippie troubador you describe? Call me cynical, but I'd bet much money that 99% of those playing music professionally/semi-pro are hoping hard to acheive financial success, and if they stumbled across it they would be motivated to continue. This all speaks to perpetuating.

"Strawman, because I never said the two were mutually exclusive." -L

WHAT??!! How many times have we seen you declare that sales and influence had nothing whatsoever to do with each other? Your list of 34 influencial
yet modest selling artists combined with your matra would certainly suggest that you find the two mutually exclusive, or at least offensive to admit sales/Impact can be a third pillar.


"This is supposed to be a HoF that includes the artists that "perpetuate rock and roll." You see, you're little rule with the sales doesn't work, since I've shown that one stage is an assumption." -Liam

Must we perform an autopsy on our word of the day "Perpetuate"? How can you be so stubborn? How can you really believe that perpetuating rock and roll can ONLY be evaluated in the myopic context of the fishbowl world between musicians? They are not animals in a zoo whom we watch the mating habits of for study purposes....... they make their music for public consumption and praise - that's the consumer - don't you get it? It IS related, it ISrelevant. It IS a poular medium. It IS entertainment s well as art. Yea, yea it is, brother!!!!!!!!!!


"You either take sales on their own or you don't take them at all." Liam

The false dichotomy is shouted again across the windmills of Spain, and our braveo Sir Liam Quixote of La Mancha will not acquiesce until he has preserved the honor of his maiden Rock Art.
he and his faithful companiion, Sancho William Panza.

Tilt on Liam.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:50pm


""And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. Exactly NOBODY here is saying that." - mel

"Apart from Shawn and Philip." - Liam

No, no you did not just say that. For the first time here Liam, you are exasperating me to the point of pissing me off.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:53pm


"No, I'm saying that there is only ever a very small link between sales and influence." -Liam

Liam, this is a slight concession on your part. (good for you!) You're on record many times as saying "sales don't mean anything" -- mainly about bands you simply don't like. Now you can say that "sales increase your chances for being influential, but don't guarantee it."

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 13:11pm


When I say "sales don't mean anything," I mean it within discussion for Hall nomination.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 13:43pm


They don't "increase your chances." There is a tiny correlation between sales and influence, just like there's a correlation between ice cream sales and murder. It doesn't show a real cause and effect relationship, just a correlation. They trend together. And yeah, a band with sales tends to be a band with decent marketing, thus more airplay, so unless they bring absolutely nothing new to the table, what they do bring will spread. Only rarely could a band with no original aspects gain a serious amount of followers, and this tends to happen by convincing the public that what they did was original even if it wasn't (The Beatles, Hendrix, etc.). This is so rare it's barely worth mentioning, and is unlikely to ever happen again.

If your idea of "perpetuating" rock is just keeping people listening to it, what the hell? Were they at risk of stopping? How many listeners do we need to maintain critical mass? Just because people bought Bon Jovi doesn't mean he "perpetuated" rock for those people. They might have bought something else, and even the worst case scenario, nothing, isn't bad. I haven't bought a new album in a while, but I'm not somehow devoid of rock and waiting for someone to come along and "perpetuate" it for me. There's always something to listen to. More albums are released in a week than there is time in that week to listen to all of them. Nearly everyone "perpetuates" rock in that sense. It's never in danger of disappearing, but it is in constant danger of stagnation.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 13:55pm


I don't think anyone has said that sales = influence. What is being said is that sales = accessibility; that in turn opens the door for possible influence. You cannot be influenced by an artist unless you have heard their music. Granted, with the increasing availability of music on the internet, younger musicians need not go buy a CD to hear something. But 20 years ago, this was not the case. Bands showcased themselves in hopes that some label, major or independent would sign them and release their work.

And Shawn makes a point; musicians/bands who have hopes of making a career of their musical talent need to sell records to pay the rent. Bands just starting out do not slap around the local music scene for $1000 bucks because they enjoy hand to mouth living existance. They do it because they want the big payday, whatever that may be. Yes, there is always an exception to the rule. But in general, all bands want to achieve some level of success.

Liam - why do you keep lumping the Kinks into this? They achieved a large amount of commercial success.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:01pm


"They don't "increase your chances." There is a tiny correlation between sales and influence, just like there's a correlation between ice cream sales and murder. It doesn't show a real cause and effect relationship, just a correlation. They trend together." -William

I think there is a bit more than a "tiny" correlation. But I accept your point about it not being a cause and effect relationship.

I also don't think it's quite like ice cream sales and murder. More like gun sales and murder rates.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:05pm


"They [The Kinks] achieved a large amount of commercial success."

Not compared to many acts of the era.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:10pm


LIAM - "You're the one claiming that there is an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. So I'm asking you to prove that by naming some influencers who have sold less than 10,000 (or 50,000 if you wish) albums. Who are they?"

Come up with any yet, or are you still digging?

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:14pm


"I also don't think it's quite like ice cream sales and murder. More like gun sales and murder rates." - mel

*puts hand out flat and slices air above head, simultaneaously makes a 'whoosh' noise*

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:16pm


Sorry, Liam if that one went over your head ;)

I guess I need to use those stupid emoticons like everyone else.

I stand by my point though. Sorry you don't understand. It's pretty clear you've painted yourself into a corner, so you try to change the subject.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:23pm


Oh, it's absolutely hilarious now you stuck the emoticon on the end. Seriously, I'm gonna burst. Somebody help me.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:26pm


As for these influencers selling less than 50,000 copies, you need to secify as of what period in their career, and how old the artist is. I'm pretty sure R.E.M. sold alot more records in their Out of Time/Automatic For The People period than they did in their Murmur/Reckoning period.

I'm still not totally sure why you're obsessing over specific sales margins anyway. Or do you actually think The Fall and MBV to be "best-selling?"

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:43pm


Well, there are plenty of influencers at the top end of the sales spectrum. You haven't produced any at the bottom, yet you maintain they are evenly distributed throughout. So the lowly sellers who with the massive influence are... who? There are tens of thousands of bands who sold less than 10,000 albums. Why can't you name one that had lasting impact on rock?

MBV and The Fall actually have had relatively successful (sales wise) careers. Their influence far outpaced their sales record, that's a credit to them. But they had to have a modicum of sales/exposure to get that point. And even bands that have a small following get the opportunity of 25 years for it to snowball before they're eligible, and it should be big enough to be measured by that point.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:09pm


How did MBV get exposure? Isn't Anything (from before every critic and his dog was hailing Loveless) got almost no recognition by the media, and yet it (somehow) managed to kickstart the whole shoe-gaze scene. Anomalie?

Answer this: is there a cause and effect link betweem sales and influence? Yes or no.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:22pm


I have maintained that there is a strong correlation between sales and influence. Not a cause and effect relationship.

And you really need to learn how to spell anomaly if you're going to keep using it.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:33pm


"So record labels make music all of a sudden? Neat."

Uh no, I didn't even come close to saying that. I said they distribute it.

"Even if the label didn't pick up the group, the group would STILL be playing the music."

But if fewer people are hearing it, there's less chance of an artist being influential. You can't always rely on sheer quality of music to do all the work. It goes a long way, yes, but in addition to being art and entertainment, there's also the business side to it. That's why we induct record execs, promoters, etc. as well as artists.

"I'm not completely dismissing that there are a certain few artists whose influence was aided by huge commercial success, but how many artists got in the same position as Nirvana?"

Depends on how strict your parameters are for defining Nirvana's position. It could be argued that Bill Haley and Elvis are in the same position... also the Beatles, Carole King, Ramones, etc.

"It actually sounds like you trying to discredit underground influence right there."

Kinda but not really. I'm not denying underground influence, but if underground influence begets ONLY more underground artists and more underground influence, imo, you're not doing a lot to help perpetuate rock'n'roll. Which is easy to misunderstand... but lets be clear here, Sonic Youth, New York Dolls, etc. all underground, but their influence reached beyond the world of the underground.

"But that doesn't mean you WILL have those followers. All it shows is that your CHANCES of having followers will increase, but you haven't given a concrete rule that the followers will be there. With that, you're forced to assume that the followers are there."

No, you're only forced to assume that the chances are BETTER than if they never get picked up by a major label. Your argument seems to assume that the chances of followers are greater if they DON'T get wider distribution.

"Why not make it easy on yourself and actually find out who actually followed the artist?"

Why yes, I believe that's why they instituted the 25 year rule.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:50pm


"Because David, they are the Bran Flakes of rock music: bland, unimaginative gruel and they give me loose bowel movements." - Shawn

But - Bran Flakes is the healthy choice.

Watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame go the healthy way for headlines and admission sales.

Shawn - In late September, you better take Imodium AD.

Posted by David on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 16:31pm


"Answer this: is there a cause and effect link betweem sales and influence? Yes or no." -Liam

First of all, the answer to that will not negate either influence or sales impact as a pillar of perpetuaton and development. They stand independant regardless of whether they effect one another hypothetically. You have no leverage to discard sales when it is condeded that influence blossoms forth from musician to musician, often irrelevant of common listener exposure.

But to answer: not a direct link, not even an indirect one always, but common sense says things like this:
from Dameon:

"I don't think anyone has said that sales = influence. What is being said is that sales = accessibility; that in turn opens the door for possible influence. **(You cannot be influenced by an artist unless you have heard their music.)
- Dameon

from Philip:
"Not exactly. I think popularity is a part of Impact, Impact in turn can lend itself to influence (though not always)." - Philip

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 16:39pm


"I haven't bought a new album in a while, but I'm not somehow devoid of rock and waiting for someone to come along and "perpetuate" it for me." - William

Ridiculous. Just because you personally didn't consume an artist's offerings doesn't mean THEY haven't contributed to the growth of the art. You can't possibly be that egocentric, right?


"There's always something to listen to. More albums are released in a week than there is time in that week to listen to all of them. Nearly everyone "perpetuates" rock in that sense.
It's never in danger of disappearing, but it is in constant danger of stagnation." - William

Undeniably true and an excellent statement... but so what? As an ethical analogy, every good deed shines in the vastness of this weary world regardless of how many others are being simultaneously done.
Besides that, we sift out the busywork and recognize the stuff that for one reason or another (I, I or I) worked for the cause of rock & roll on a deeper, more lasting, or more forceful scale as independant artists, standing out from the collective you speak of.

"If your idea of "perpetuating" rock is just keeping people listening to it, what the hell? Were they at risk of stopping? How many listeners do we need to maintain critical mass?" - William

Yes William, it's just that simple. Popular music will always exist - the mainstream popular stuff sucks monkey ass currently - but hypothetically, those who are creating stuff worth listening to are indeed perpetuating rock. Underground/indie stuff is more vital in a time of musical plague like right now, and during other eras (the 70's) the environment and state of evolution was different, so artists then should be judged in the context of their time. Sales were much more relevant at that juncture in perpetuating rock than they are now, I would argue.

But yea, keeping people listening is pretty much how Impact/sales works. Innovation and Influence fertilize another kind of crop - entirely necessary ones, just different.




Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 17:04pm


"Shawn - In late September, you better take Imodium AD."

I'm gonna need to ask you if I can use your bathroom --- to blow shit all over the walls.

Bon Jovi is about as healthy as a diet of Slim Jims and Mountain Dew. Bran Flakes was an imperfect analogy.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 17:08pm


Don't worry Shawn, those Jersey Boys are not getting in, at least on this upcoming ballot.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 19:34pm


"Ridiculous. Just because you personally didn't consume an artist's offerings doesn't mean THEY haven't contributed to the growth of the art. You can't possibly be that egocentric, right?"-shawn

I'll spell it out since you seem to have missed my point entirely: If people didn't buy rock albums for a period, that does not mean that rock is "dead" or "asleep" or any of the other lame metaphors people use. Just because people aren't buying albums does not mean they aren't listening to rock. You somehow read this to mean "Only what I buy matters" or something, which is not what I said at all. I'm certainly not the ridiculous one here.

The point of the argument was that this definition of "perpetuation" is meaningless. Literally every artist could be said to "perpetuate" rock via selling albums provided they sell even one pressing. But it doesn't mean anything in the long run. Remember A Taste of Honey? Don't feel bad if you have to look them up. They set a record for most copies of a single sold and won a Grammy for Best New Artist over Elvis Costello, but they were also an instantly-forgettable pop disco group who showed up near the end of disco's long run in the spotlight and had nothing new to add to anything. I can't think of even one group who cites them as an influence, and rightly so. They did not matter in the long run.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 22:16pm


William, the 25 year waiting period is there so that we can observe whether an artist's contributions o rock were significnt enough to merit induction consideration, or, as in your Taste of Honey example, only helped perpetuate for a moment. We can also judge whether they were throwaway crap or they just sucked. Case by case basis, y'know? You have this obsessive preoccupation with ordered precepts. I would never have submitted Taste of Honey or Debbie Boone or Milli Vanilli as Hal worthy contributors, despite some high sales they may have garnered once.

Once again, noone here is saying that sales tacitly = significance worth memorializing in a Hall; just that they are certainly not always irrelevant, as you and Liam want to proffer.

And by the way, when you say,"Just because people aren't buying albums does not mean they aren't listening to rock.", please don't try to hamstring me with the word Sales - I mean that contact with the listener, the consumer of music DOES have a relationship to the perpetuation of rock, so I mean sales of cds, downloads, radio airplay, listening and sharing of music already owned - basically things that involve a musician's audience and not just peers. Jesus that sounds so common sense when I think about it more - what the fukk are you positing anyway???

That the audience/listener/non musician/consumer's role in the perpetuation of rock is irrelevant. Jesus that is just stupid.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 01:38am


"I'm gonna need to ask you if I can use your bathroom --- to blow shit all over the walls." Shawn

Are you admitting that you are full of shit?


I think if only 5 artists get inducted yearly. it will be harder for non-mainstream artists to get inducted.

Posted by David on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 06:32am


You know what I find to be really convenient of the sales case, though? The fact that it allows you lot to induct artists that just happen to be your favourites, artists who would otherwise not warrant induction.

Impact? Bullshit. You just want a nice big personal gallery to keep those waybackwhen bands alive.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 09:48am


"I think if only 5 artists get inducted yearly. it will be harder for non-mainstream artists to get inducted." -David

Indeed - I quite agree. That is why there should be more inductees each year, say 8-9 rather tahn the manipulated exclusivity Wenner & Co have cooked up with reducing it to 5. Stupid, stupid move.

"Are you admitting that you are full of shit?"

Touche! Aren't we all?

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 09:50am


I don't think anyone has mentioned the quality of the music yet as criteria for induction. Personally, I don't have a problem with inducting artists who put together an outstanding catalog of songs and albums, regardless of their influence or innovation. I'm thinking of Hall of Famers like Tom Petty and AC/DC.

These artists are not a dime a dozen. It's relatively rare to have a long career that consistently put out great music. And yes, this does allow for subjective taste to determine induction. Sure, it won't be perfect, but there's enough of a critical consensus around certain artists that it can be pretty accurate.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:09am


Good point Mel - but you are going to get some negative feedback from a few here. Personally, I agree with you and your examples of AC/DC and Tom Petty and crew are excellent. Both bands have consistently put out excellent music for decades. They may be slowing down now, but it certainly doesn't diminish what they have done over the last 25 years.

I guess the question is, "who defines quality"? Can you actually do a qualitative analysis on music?

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:15am


"Impact? Bullshit. You just want a nice big personal gallery to keep those waybackwhen bands alive. ..the sales case... allows your lot to induct...your favourites, artists who would otherwise not warrant induction." -Liam

Let's drag this abstract argument into the daylight here in the yard and have a look at who we are talking about, from both ends of the debate, shall we? Let's see what specific artists we would be fighting over in our pretend ballot barfight.

I would put Alice Cooper, Chicago, Steve Miller Band and Doobie Brothers on a ballot, primarily by virtue of my Impact perspective; would you scoff at these or go along?

I would put My Bloody Valentine, Kraftwerk, Brain Eno and Joy Division too for all the reasons you will give and I would agree 90% with your reasons.

You see, the conflict between you and William vs Philip, Dameon, mel & I is who you guys will DENY... not who we would. The battle rests in your NO --- not ours. This is fine, and I point it out not to plead some kind of equitable trade (nonsense - one has to stick to their principles) but let's be clear where the contention lies.

I would not support many of your Brit-pop or fukking shoegaze heroes. I would also be more cautious than you about heaping the love on your pantheon of post-punk idols.

So for example, if we had one slot left:
Joe Cocker over The Pixies? Yea, probably.

Chicago over Sonic Youth? No way.

Steve Miller Band over Cocteau Twins. Abso-fukking-lutely.

Doobie Brothers over The Buzzcocks? Yes.

Genesis over The Replacements? I want both. I really don't know - if I was forced into a Sophie's Choice.

These are all just hypotheticals designed to see where exactly how argument would manifest itself pragmatically.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:15am


Shawn - This attempt at logic and reason is only going to upset people even more.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:43am


The difference between Alice Cooper and Steve Miller Band, Chicago and Doobie Brothers is that Cooper is actually vital to both glam rock and hard rock.

"I would not support many of your Brit-pop or fukking shoegaze heroes."

But alot of britpop bands got alot of airplay. What makes Supergrass or Blur any different to The Doobie Brothers or Steve Miller Band that exempts them from your criteria? Unless this is more to do with personal preference. What a shocker that would be.

There's no more than ten shoegaze bands that I can think of that deserve induction, BTW.

"Steve Miller Band over Cocteau Twins. Abso-fukking-lutely."

Right, so you would value certain Speshal Sales Bands over bands with actual influence and innovation? Way to drop that bombshell all of a sudden. Obviously the Cocteaus have truckloads more influence than Steve Miller Band.

This is just seems like your opinion getting in the way of your judgement. Would you take a band you were indifferent to - let's just say KISS - over the Cocteau Twins?

"Doobie Brothers over The Buzzcocks? Yes."

But wait! The Buzzcocks had influence AND regular airplay (and innovation, depending on how you look at pop punk's developement), so surely logic would suggest that they get in over the Doobies?

And again, all I read is that you let your opinion get in the way.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:48am


And again, all I read is that you let your opinion get in the way. - Liam

Your opinion is getting in the way as well. Can you show me where it is definitively stated that The Cocteaus have truckloads more influence than the Steve Miller Band? The same for the Doobies and the Buzzcocks or any of the other examples? I am keeping my opinion out of this, but can you quantify your statements while rejecting Shawns?

You did notice that Shawn clearly stated the following:

These are all just hypotheticals designed to see where exactly how argument would manifest itself pragmatically.


There's no more than ten shoegaze bands that I can think of that deserve induction, BTW. - Liam

You make this determination, yet you easily dismiss the Hair Band genre. What makes one better than the other? And if you say because the music of the Hair Bands sucked, then you are being subjective and it doesn't matter if the consesus of opinion agrees with you or not.

I am not disagreeing with you and many of the points you have made about this subject, but your rigidity on the subject of I & I seems to be based on those bands which you think are deserving. I don't see objectivity in your opinions.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:17am


"What makes Supergrass or Blur any different to The Doobie Brothers or Steve Miller Band that exempts them from your criteria?" -Liam

That would be IMPACT.

Supergrass and Blur have almost none (in America), and Steve Miller Band are an all-American favorite.

Obviously, since SMB aren't in yet, the Hall doesn't think what their catalog is in line with Petty or AC/DC.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:33am


"Can you show me where it is definitively stated that The Cocteaus have truckloads more influence than the Steve Miller Band?" - Dameon

Well, I'm not going to make SMB's case, because I don't think there is one. Cocteau Twins influenced the entirety of shoe-gaze bands and had a huge hand in the development of post-rock and dream-pop.

It's "definitely stated" in your mind, assuming that you did your research.

Unless you actually think SMB are more influential than The Cocteau Twins, in which case, I'll be happy to lob your credibility out the window for you.

"The same for the Doobies and the Buzzcocks or any of the other examples?" - Dameon

Just to give a vague picture, compare the list of Followers AMG gives to the Doobie Brothers to that of The Buzzcocks. The Buzzcocks actually have more followers than that, but AMG limits those lists to twenty to avoid over-crowding.

Again, feel free to try to make a case of the Doobie Brothers being more influential than The Buzzcocks. It's your credibility, not mine.

"You make this determination, yet you easily dismiss the Hair Band genre. What makes one better than the other? And if you say because the music of the Hair Bands sucked, then you are being subjective and it doesn't matter if the consesus of opinion agrees with you or not."

Who said that I was bringing my opinion into this? Those shoe-gaze bands deserve in for their influence and, in numerous cases, innovation. The only hair metal groups who have any sort of case (excluding Van Halen) are Def Leppard and Guns N Roses. Bon Jovi et al. suck, and I don't think any well-informed individual needs telling that they have a miniscule following and non-existent innovation.

"but your rigidity on the subject of I & I seems to be based on those bands which you think are deserving. I don't see objectivity in your opinions."

You "don't see objectify in my opinions" because that's not possible. Do you need a clue-in as to what an "opinion" is and how subjectivity and objectivity differ from each other?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:47am


"That would be IMPACT.

Supergrass and Blur have almost none (in America), and Steve Miller Band are an all-American favorite." - mel

What exactly makes popularity in the USA any different from popularity in the UK, France, Germany or anywhere else? How exactly are American listeners the only ones that can be "impacted?" Are all non-American radio-listeners somehow exempt from the "impactable" status? Alla Pugacheva is massively popular in Russia, so how does her impact differ at all to the impact of SMB in the States?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:55am


"What exactly makes popularity in the USA any different from popularity in the UK, France, Germany or anywhere else?" -Liam

Are you serious? Uh, the Rock Hall is an American institution that recognizes artists that were significant to Americans. The Nominating Committee isn't made up of an international panel, it's (probably) Americans with a couple of Canadians.

Are you suggesting the Rock Hall should recognize Russian artists that have no significance in the US? That's not what it's about, even if the front door doesn't specifically say "American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:09pm


"And again, all I read is that you let your opinion get in the way." -Liam

Really? Well then if that's the defensive stance you've resolved yourself to and that's all you're going to hear then I give up; we're done then, aren't we.

BTW - part of the reason I would pass by the Brit-pops and Buzzcocks is the same reason you can't get over them - they were on the bloody BRITISH radio and were preominant and ubiqutous in Britain!! This is an American institute. I do not mean that only American acts BELONG --- its just that an American born institution is going to reflect that culture's circle of recognizables.

I'm sure that were this an Ausrailian born Hall Kylie Minogue, INXS, Midnight Oil and Men at Work would be shoe-ins; but they'll be nowhere to be seen here.

But all that is a tangent - you keep hammering away at that Influence drum and I keep telling you telling you no matter how loud and oblivious you are to my point, there are pillars that don't require that rhythm. Just ignoring me does not reenforce your view, y'know.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:23pm


"Uh, the Rock Hall is an American institution that recognizes artists that were significant to Americans. The Nominating Committee isn't made up of an international panel, it's (probably) Americans with a couple of Canadians." - mel

Total shame you forgot to mention that rather vital point before hand. All you were speaking of was popularity and radio play; you made ABSOLUTELY NO DISTINCTION to say that they had to be within the USA.

Nothing within the Hall's disclaimer says "being significant to Americans" is a criteria. In fact, nothing about nationality is even given a mention.

The Hall's criteria includes "the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll," and even with your precious radio play/sales interpretation, NOTHING in there says anything about nationality.

You failed to mention that artists had to be popular within the USA to fit into your little criteria. You can carry on lumping on criteria as we go along, but expect to be called up if and when you do.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:25pm


Johnny Hallyday, "The French Elvis", has been considered by the nominating committee. Could anyone explain his significance for Americans?

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:32pm


The reason you'd bypass The Buzzcocks and many other UK radio friendly groups is because you're not a big fan. You'll carry on with this charade with made-up-on-the-spot arguments like "they weren't pop in the USA," but I can see this is nothing more than a ruse to get your personal favourite acts in there.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:35pm


"Well, I'm not going to make SMB's case, because I don't think there is one."

If I were to bring up Cocteau twins or My Bloody Valentine to a room, I would have to explain myself, convince and provide proof that these acrtists are significant. I would be able to do it in the end naturally form what we all know, but it would take documentation and education.
No penalties for that; it just is so.

If I bring up Steve Miller band or Doobie Brothers, I get a roome full of nods and some disbelief that there is even a doubt or debate.
"You mean they're not in?! WTF?"

My list of "reasons" would only have to be:
Take the Money and Run
Fly Like an Eagle
Jet Airliner
Rockin Me
Swingtown
Livin in the USA
The Joker
and people would know what I am saying. They'd say - hel yes!

Same with the Doobies. I say:
China Grove
Black Water
Long Train Runnin
Takin it to the Streets
Listen to the Music
Another Park, Another Sunday
What a Fool Believes
and people say "Fukk yea."

This is the somewhat intangible force of Impact, but tell me that did not contribute to the perpetuation and development of rock. Yes William, if people hypothetically stopped listening and buying and attending concerts and being entertained by rock, then yes it would hypothetically die. A very large population of musicians would stop playing and this zoological study of the behavior of The Musician would look like idiocy.

Mock me as you will, but this speaks to the Impact/ubiquity/ popularity argument. Now after that, we have to do the suck test, which I will state for the 3rd time I fear not.

"Cocteau Twins influenced the entirety of shoe-gaze bands and had a huge hand in the development of post-rock and dream-pop."
-Liam

Super! So they did! And perhaps the Hall will come to the day when they decide to give a nod shoe-gaze and dream-pop. But does it occur to you: how goddamm specific are you willing to get in this sub-grouping and defining of genres befire it gets trite and ridiculous?

What if I innovate a completely new genre called Post-Alternative Butt Trumpet Neo Polka Noise Pop?
Who the FUKK cares?? remember that goof a few weeks ago here who kept reminding us of all the Japanese pop groups we didn't have on this site?

My point is that sometimes I & I are scared and worth memorializing, and sometimes it's just plain popularity (hopefully accompanied with quality - but that would require subjectivity - OH NO!!) that is enough to get a fukkin band inducted because of the enthusiasm they generated.

That's good enough for me to satisfy Perpetuation of the art.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:51pm


"The reason you'd bypass The Buzzcocks and many other UK radio friendly groups is because you're not a big fan. You'll carry on with this charade with made-up-on-the-spot arguments like "they weren't pop in the USA," but I can see this is nothing more than a ruse to get your personal favourite acts in there." -Liam

Holy crap.
Are the Buzzcocks a personal favorite of yours Liam? Yes or no.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 12:54pm


Why didn't I state the bit about it being American? Well, first of all, it's obvious. Find an inductee who didn't leave a mark on the US music scene.

I didn't say you had to perform music either, but that's true as well.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 13:05pm


"Super! So they did! And perhaps the Hall will come to the day when they decide to give a nod shoe-gaze and dream-pop."

Aaah, sounds like the good old "but their albums sold shit so they won't ever get in!" Is that fall-back as cushy as it sounds?

"But does it occur to you: how goddamm specific are you willing to get in this sub-grouping and defining of genres befire it gets trite and ridiculous?

What if I innovate a completely new genre called Post-Alternative Butt Trumpet Neo Polka Noise Pop?
Who the FUKK cares??"

I'm not being "goddamn specific" in the slightest. If you're unaware of a specific sub-genres importance or size, find out about it. And implying that the existance of the shoe-gaze, post-rock and dream-pop sub-genres is "trite and ridiculous" does more to damage your credibility than anything else.

Who cares? How's about the musicians that played, play and (I believe) will play the music. Ever heard of Silver Apples? They had a sound that managed to anticipate krautrock (thus electronica), experimental electronica and underground dance and indie rock with their 1968 eponymous debut, and yet they're still yet to garner anything more than a hardcore cult following to this day.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 13:13pm


"Holy crap.
Are the Buzzcocks a personal favorite of yours Liam? Yes or no." - Shawn

Yes, The Buzzcocks are a personal favourite of mine, but the differences between Me n' The Buzzcocks and You n' Steve Miller is that I can actually make the influence and innovation case for The Buzzcocks without bringing any dubious sales argument in, and you can't do the same for SMB. I just find it amazingly coincidental that Steve Miller Band HAPPEN to be a favourite of yours AND worthy under the criteria YOU created!

"Why didn't I state the bit about it being American? Well, first of all, it's obvious." - mel

What a get-out. "Why didn't I tell him to wear safety goggles when handling Hydrochloric acid? It's obvious."

"Find an inductee who didn't leave a mark on the US music scene." - mel

There is no "US music scene." "Scenes" are bound by musical themes, and there is no one theme shared by all American musicians.

Nothing in the Hall's disclaimer says anything like "they've gotta be influential to American musicians."

Also, there is quite a notable difference between who I think the Hall should induct and who the Hall actually inducts. There's at least fifty artists who are eligible that I could make the influence and innovation case for.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 13:41pm


Should also be noted that Silver Apples did influence those genres aswell. Even though "anticipated" would suggest so, it is not definite.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 13:43pm


Forgot to mention: The Buzzcocks being a personal favourite really had nothing to do with my point. I was testing to see whether outside-USA radio was relevant, or whether Shawn was limiting it to US radio. You know, the same US radio that his favourites just happened to hit it big on.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 13:47pm


Look Liam, I know what the hell shoegazing was, so shove off with the "well if you aren't as enthralled as I am with (artist A or genre Z) then it must be because you are ignorant" tactic. That's just the evil twin of "well if I am not aware of it, then it must not be worth knowing".

What i think gets perilously close to being ridiculous and trite is the parsing down and titling of "genres" to give the alegged pioneers of endless "movements" *eye roll* automatic and overinflated stature as icons or visionaries.

Wasn't "shoegazing" pretty much "dream-pop" like Cocteaus but much louder, with fuzzbox feedback and murky, hidden vocals? It's great fun and historically accurate to follow the development from ambients like Eno to "dream-pop" of Cocteaus and Chameleons, then to - what d'ya wanna call MBV, Jesus & Mary Chain, Dino Jr? - lo-fi?, through to this shoegazing it was called for what, 4 years or so?

Don't forget etheral wave, space rock, psychedelic rock, noise pop, gothic rock, electronica, how about drone??? Krist.

My point isn't that these subgenres existence is trite - it's that you can parse it all down into such anal retentive categories that now have a champion of each - like an empty job title - that it makes you look like a fool for screaming at me about how i can't appreciate their genius - that I am guilty of ignorance. You can get to the point that you're being a geek if you claim a spot in a Hall for them all BASED ON (pay attention now) those over-compartmentalized titles.

wasn't shoegazing at one time reffered to as "the scene that felatiates itself" or something like that?

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 14:15pm


Personally - I don't see the great significance of a genre that was named because the bands basically had zero stage presence. But then again, the hair scene was named after Aquanet Hairspray, so what do I know.

This is not to say that there were not some excellent bands in any of these genres. But the pigeonholing of them lessens their impact on the genre of Rock as a whole. And isn't that what the HoF is supposed to be about, the genre as a whole?

Speaking of live performances; shouldn't that also be a criteria?

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 14:24pm


"..the differences between Me n' The Buzzcocks and You n' Steve Miller is that I can actually make the influence and innovation case for The Buzzcocks without bringing any dubious sales argument in, and you can't do the same for SMB." -Liam

SO F-U-K-K-I-N-G WHAT, for the last time??
You can't point to any legacy of American affection or lasting recognizability with the Buzzcocks. But I know, I know... you think that is beneath you.
I would still induct the Buzzcocks, btw, because of their influence on punk and post-punk.

"I just find it amazingly coincidental that Steve Miller Band HAPPEN to be a favourite of yours AND worthy under the criteria YOU created!
Yes, The Buzzcocks are a personal favourite of mine, but..." - Liam

Ahhh - with me I CREATED a criteria and am either in denial or outright corrupting the process with my lies.
But you.... there is always a "but". Because your embrace only the hard science of rock history. Your favorites are favorites because they deserve to be, according to facts - not like a band I'd support being in, being an emotional idiot.

There are bands I've never been a fan of, meaning I either dislike them or I just am not interested in listening to, but nonetheless I would support going in. This only would prove that your accusation that I am building an argument around my crass favorites is bull - as if my repeated support of influencers and innovators isn't enough - and it should be.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 14:32pm


"Personally - I don't see the great significance of a genre that was named because the bands basically had zero stage presence. But then again, the hair scene was named after Aquanet Hairspray, so what do I know." -Dameon

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Nice, Dameon, on both observations!

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 14:35pm


"Look Liam, I know what the hell shoegazing was, so shove off with the "well if you aren't as enthralled as I am with (artist A or genre Z) then it must be because you are ignorant" tactic." - Shawn

Just a total shame I wasn't doing that in the slightest. I wasn't talking about your opinion of the music, I was commenting on how you believed the label ought not to exist.

"What i think gets perilously close to being ridiculous and trite is the parsing down and titling of "genres" to give the alegged pioneers of endless "movements" *eye roll* automatic and overinflated stature as icons or visionaries."

So the fact that My Bloody Valentine's Isn't Anything kicked off the shoe-gaze scene is somehow less important because that scene was relatively short-lived and contained fewer artists then, say, pop punk? As far as rock music goes, shoe-gaze, dream-pop and post-rock are all rather vital.

"Don't forget etheral wave, space rock, psychedelic rock, noise pop, gothic rock, electronica, how about drone???"

What's wrong with any of those? Space rock has been active since the days of Hawkwind and Pink Floyd, and has been brought to mainstream attention by The Verve and The Flaming Lips.

Noise Pop is an umbrella term for artists using noise and distortion in the common pop formula, the first of whom was JAMC. There's rather alot.

You're disputing gothic rock?! Seriously?

You have a problem with electronica? Ethereal Wave I can understand, but....ELECTRONICA?! WTF?!


It almost seems like you don't think I'm capable of discerning what is relevant and what isn't.

"SO F-U-K-K-I-N-G WHAT, for the last time??
You can't point to any legacy of American affection or lasting recognizability with the Buzzcocks. But I know, I know... you think that is beneath you.
I would still induct the Buzzcocks, btw, because of their influence on punk and post-punk."

Why does the legacy have to be Americam? You didn't mention that before.

The point was that they still had interest on UK radio. I fail to see how the whereabouts of the radio makes any difference. The Hall isn't even called "The US Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," so you can't read any geographical parameters into it.

""But you.... there is always a "but". Because your embrace only the hard science of rock history. Your favorites are favorites because they deserve to be, according to facts - not like a band I'd support being in, being an emotional idiot." - Shawn

Do you think that when I first picked up Singles Going Steady I did so because of The Buzzcocks influence? No, I picked it up because I had previously heard several tracks and greatly enjoyed them. I don't listen to bands because I deem them important. I'm unsure whether The Mekons have the right amount of influence to deserve induction, yet Fear and Whiskey is one of my favourite albums. I like Aztec Camera, yet they aren't even close to deserving. There are many groups I like but won't mention them here because they aren't relevant.

But even if I did happen to like solely important artists, would it matter?

"This only would prove that your accusation that I am building an argument around my crass favorites is bull - as if my repeated support of influencers and innovators isn't enough - and it should be."

It's not an "argument" that I think you are allowing you're favourites a free pass. I just find it quite convenient on your behalf that this criteria allows some of your favourite artists in, whilst locking out those who would otherwise fit the criteria simply because their success wasn't had in America (and coincidentally you never listened to it) and those who do fit your criteria because you deem them to be "shit."

I never suggested that you were building a Hall around you're favourites. I suggested that you were using these new criteria as a loophole for artists you like to get in.


It's not like "The UK Music Hall of Fame," where you could read "UK Music" to mean artists who impacted UK-based music. It's "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," which gives no indication as to any geographical limitations. So that's why I say you've got to take non-American success into account (if you take success into account in the first place, which I wouldn't).

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 15:21pm


I'm going off now, but I want your evaluations of Head Over Heels and Ocean Rain by this time tomorrow, Shawn.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 15:24pm


Now there's a Hall of Fame I want to go see! Liam's International Rock and Roll Hall of Fame -- inducting all of the innovators and influencers from around the globe! Hey it's that Chinese band that started the Shanghai-pop Nu-wave era! And it's that Hungarian singer who was vital to the development of post-Cold War Underground metal! Wheee!

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 15:35pm


is that Cooper is actually vital to both glam rock and hard rock. - Liam

Wouldn't you say that Alice Cooper is important to Rock in general?

Just to give a vague picture, compare the list of Followers AMG gives to the Doobie Brothers to that of The Buzzcocks. - Liam

AMG - Affiliated Managers Group Inc. (United States) (NYSE) Why would I use this organization to see who is important in music :-?

The only hair metal groups who have any sort of case (excluding Van Halen) are Def Leppard and Guns N Roses. Bon Jovi et al. suck, and I don't think any well-informed individual needs telling that they have a miniscule following and non-existent innovation. - Liam

What do you mean by miniscule following? I would think that the only way you can measure a bands following is sales and concert attendance. Didn't you say that this should not count?

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 16:22pm


Brit Pop! Where did this come from anyway? I understand the why; but isn't the where so obvious that it does not need its own named genre. Did they add some new twists or actually reinvent the British Invasion of the 60's in a way that I completely missed? I mean I love Oasis and Blur, but why does it have own own specific genre? I would personally vote Oasis in because of the fact that they were a hell of a Rock Band. I am sure kids picked up guitars for the first time just because of what they heard from Oasis.

I will say this one more time - there are way too many sub-sub genre's in RnR.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 18:23pm


One more thing before I sign out. Liam - don't take my last comment personal. I am just asking a question about the named sub-genre, not the quality of the music itself. I know Oasis and Co. were kind of responding to America's Grunge movement and were trying to keep things in Brit perspective.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 18:59pm


"Now there's a Hall of Fame I want to go see! Liam's International Rock and Roll Hall of Fame -- inducting all of the innovators and influencers from around the globe! Hey it's that Chinese band that started the Shanghai-pop Nu-wave era! And it's that Hungarian singer who was vital to the development of post-Cold War Underground metal! Wheee!" - mel

Way to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about inducting artists BECAUSE they're international, just that it shouldn't be held against them if they weren't America or the UK. If you actually had a point to make, you wouldn't have needed to stick that insult against me in there. You know, the only people I've known to seriously point fun of smaller-known sub and micro-genres have always been the people who know jack all about them.

If a group made a significant contribution to rock, how does their nationality affect that? To reitterate, the HoF is called "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," which gives absolutely no possibility to interpret some sort of geographical parameter into it, such as "The UK Music Hall of Fame."

There's a problem with foreign innovation and influence? What, mel, are you the Neo-Nazis Art Department? I guess Daft Punk, Giorgio Moroder and Serge Gainsbourg can't get in your Hall because they're from France. What about Kraftwerk? Can? Neu!? Tangerine Dream? Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds and The Birthday? The Church?

Ofcourse, you'll come back to the above paragraph with something like "Well, it's obvious; they're just different to most cases."

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.30.08 @ 10:01am


jeeeeeeeeeeeeesus....bon jovi?what about the stooges?motorhead?you know,bands that wrote great songs.

Posted by jake on Wednesday, 04.30.08 @ 11:11am


Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

I have no problem with foreign influence and innovation, and it's worth honoring in the Hall of Fame when it impacts the rock scene in America, just as they have done in the past. But to open the gates to all of the international innovators and influencers (within their own music spheres) out there isn't realistic. I'm quite sure there's an active rock culture in Russia, where there are unique genres and sub-genres, that are more or less exclusive to Russia. Do I have any idea what these are? Not a clue. Do they have merit? Of course -- and they should appropriately be honored in a Russian cultural musuem or Hall of Fame. But it's pointless to honor them in Cleveland, when they wouldn't have any context to the music that Americans listen to. If there's a Russian artist whose influence crosses over, then by all means, put them on the ballot.

It seems like you're getting nervous because all of the bands that paved the way for the UK scene aren't going to get a fair shake. Clearly, the UK and US scenes are more closely linked (but still different) than most, but there will still be a bias towards the artists that shaped and were a part of American rock culture. I think you just have to keep that in mind.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 04.30.08 @ 11:24am


You people make my head hurt.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 04.30.08 @ 12:34pm


You read through all that?!

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.30.08 @ 13:13pm


KIT! Que pasa?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 04.30.08 @ 22:38pm


Melanie has influenced the ENTIRE world of music in general...in all forms of it.

Signaling an Artist for an encore by holding up some form of light (cel phones, lighters...) ALL began with Melanie and her appearance at Woodstock! Hundreds of thousands of people held-up candles in the rain during Melanie's performance....NOW it's something done AT ALL concerts! -Talk about influencing the world of music!!!!

-Bill
www.PetitionOnline.com/mssrrhof/petition.html

Posted by Bill on Thursday, 05.1.08 @ 20:31pm


Bill - I thought they did that because they couldn't find their acid for the evening :-?

"Brand New Key" was the main influence for a character in the "Boogie Nights" film. I think she was played by Heather Graham and was named Roller Girl.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 05.2.08 @ 10:26am


...Too funny, Dameon!

Actually it was the audience's response to Melanie's song "Birthday Of The Sun"...but because of it, she wrote one of her greatest songs "Lay Down, Candles In The Rain"!

And yes...you are correct about "Boogie Nights"!


-Bill

Posted by Bill on Friday, 05.2.08 @ 22:43pm


Since "Induct Now!" lists are all the rage...

Bad Brains, Afrika Bambaataa, Beastie Boys, Big Star, The Birthday Party, Black Flag, Blue Öyster Cult, Buzzcocks, Can, The Cars, Cocteau Twins, The Cure, The Damned, The Dead Kennedys, Depeche Mode, Devo, Nick Drake, Echo & The Bunnymen, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, The (English) Beat, Brian Eno, Fad Gadget, The Fall,
Serge Gainsbourg, Gang of Four, Genesis, Giorgio Moroder, The Hollies, Husker Du, Iron Maiden, The Jam, Joy Division, Judas Priest, Killing Joke, Kraftwerk, Love, Madness, MC5, Meat Puppets, Metallica, Ministry, Minor Threat, Minutemen, Mission of Burma, The Modern Lovers, The Monkees, Motorhead, Mott The Hopple, Neu!, New Order, New York Dolls, Pere Ubu, The Pop Group, Public Image Ltd., The Replacements, Roxy Music, Siouxsie & The Banshees, Sonic Youth, The Specials, The Stooges, Suicide, T. Rex, Talk Talk, Tangerine Dream, Tom Waits, Wire, X, XTC, Yes and The Zombies.

That's something around 70 artists, but £50 says I've forgotten someone painfully obvious. Decided not to include any from the '08 list, but if you want to know, I'd go with The Smiths, Pulp (hey, U2 got in before the anniversary of Boy), SRV and Run DMC.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 05.3.08 @ 10:17am


What about Donovan and Gary Lewis & the Playboys?

Posted by joker on Saturday, 05.3.08 @ 22:48pm


I'd give it to Donovan, but not Gary Lewis. I do love Gary Lewis's stuff for the most part, but when you get into the covers of other songs that he did, some are just painful.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 05.3.08 @ 23:50pm


Captain Beefheart just won me that £50.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 05.4.08 @ 09:20am


I see that the issue of influence has risen its ugly head again. So I ask, how do we define influence?

Example 1 - A kid at 13 hears and sees some band, any band. And it is because of this that the kid picks up the guitar. 20 years later, this kid has grown up to be a well respected musician. In listening to this person's music, you cannot detect the influence of any one band but in an interview, he/she states that it is because of a certain band that made him pick up that instrument. Can we say then that this band was an influence even though we cannot hear it?

or

Example 2 - Influence is defined only by one musician incorporating a sound (musician or band) from years gone by and adding something to it?

or

Example 3 - something else?

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 05.17.08 @ 14:57pm


Who is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?:

INDUCT NOW! FINAL LIST!

The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Box Tops, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, RUN DMC, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, Hall & Oates

Ella Fitzgerald, Barbra Streisand, The Chiffons, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Pat Boone, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck, Boz Scaggs, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Eddie Money, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, "Weird Al" Yankovic

John Simon, Tom Dowd, Arif Mardin, Quincy Jones, Wolfman Jack, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 05.17.08 @ 18:08pm


"I see that the issue of influence has risen its ugly head again. So I ask, how do we define influence?"

All of the above. If a band influenced a person to become a musician rather than a plumber then yes, it's an important influence.

It doesn't stop there though. As a fan of music I'm sure you continue to find new music through the people that influenced the bands/musicians you enjoy, or who that band/musician has influenced.

So even if a band's influence is not easily identifiable in another musicians music it does not mean that band was not a stepping stone.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that anyone can tell me, with any certainty, if one musician influenced another. Artists can be influenced simply by ideas or subtle musical style in a way that may not be obvious.

Posted by stan on Saturday, 05.17.08 @ 19:19pm


Roy - stop. And please take your medication for your OCD.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that anyone can tell me, with any certainty, if one musician influenced another. - Stan

The only way this can truly be determined is if in an interview, one musician says specifically that he was influenced by another. Case in point - Steve Jones of the Pistols has clearly stated in interviews that his guitar style was a complete copy of Johnny Thunders of the Dolls. He wanted to sound like J.T.

As to the point of influence - what if a musician spawned hundreds of other musicians but none of them ever did anything worthwhile or even noteworthy. Is that one musician still considered an influence?

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 05.17.08 @ 19:44pm


ROY, I thought you said that was your final list about aweek ago and here it is again. Get off of it, enough already.

Posted by Brian on Saturday, 05.17.08 @ 20:28pm


"As to the point of influence - what if a musician spawned hundreds of other musicians but none of them ever did anything worthwhile or even noteworthy. Is that one musician still considered an influence?"

Now you're talking in circles. So how do we judge wether the musicians that were spawned ever did anything worthwhile or noteworthy. Is selling a million records noteworthy? Do the musicians that were influenced have to be in the HOF?

The problem with the HOF and this board is it always comes back to someone's personal taste. It's musical snobbery, which is hilarious when we are talking about rock, which in itself is considered by many as musical crap.


Posted by stan on Sunday, 05.18.08 @ 07:56am


Stan - actually I am not talking in circles and you picked up exactly what I am trying to say. How do we know? Who is the final determination as to whether one band influenced another or one musician influenced another? Some here wish to scream objectivity at the top of their lungs, but there is no objectivity in an art form and if there is, it is very difficult to come by. Personal tastes and opinions will always rear its head.

Thanks for the conversation Stan - this is so much better that this band sucks and this band is great which is what usually dominates this board.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 05.18.08 @ 08:20am


There is absolutely objectivity. The problem is, as I've said before, that it's not an exact science. Every band has influences, and since they cannot be subjective, they must be objective. They exist without outside observers.

Now here's the rub: Outside observers have to figure out what they are based on sometimes limited information. But it is not subjective, merely unclear.

Posted by William on Sunday, 05.18.08 @ 08:31am


I am not talking about the objectivity or subjectivity of a musician or a band. I am talking about it in the context of this Hall of Shame and those who vote or choose or whatever it is that they do.

All of us on this board has had something to say about many bands and whether they have met the criteria set forth by the Hall.

Outside observers have to figure out what they are based on sometimes limited information. But it is not subjective, merely unclear. - William

When you state this, are you speaking of the fan or those who hold choice over whether a band is nominated and or inducted?

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 05.18.08 @ 08:55am


"I am not talking about the objectivity or subjectivity of a musician or a band. I am talking about it in the context of this Hall of Shame and those who vote or choose or whatever it is that they do." - Dameon

It's clear that there is no objectivity to the inductions into the hall. I think they are really struggling to balance popularity and influence, any organization that lets in Madonna and Leonard Cohen in the same year certainly has issues.

Why don't they just get rid of the whole induction nonsense and just have a Rock and Roll History Center? Why turn the whole thing into such a sham? Probably to stir up controversy and publicity, much like all those crazy "Top 100" lists.




Posted by stan on Sunday, 05.18.08 @ 10:33am


We have discussed innovation, influence and the everlasting arguement regarding what "perpetuation" actually means regarding this subject. What we have not discussed much is the importance of the live performance. It has been touched upon when speaking of Alice Cooper, Kiss, etc. Is this a criteria that is looked at by the HoF and if it is not, should it?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 08:35am


In general, I don't think the live show is going to make or break an induction. Exceptional live shows may tip the scales in favor, but that would probably be rare. Who among the inductees is best known for their live performances? Pink Floyd? Hendrix? Madonna, Bruce, the Dead?

I think the Dead is probably the only artist who wouldn't be in if they didn't have the asset of their concerts. If Phish gets in, it will be on similar merits. Maybe Dave Matthews too.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 11:13am


Thanks Mel - I bring this up because as much as many of us want to label this music a pure art form; one of the truly special things about RnR is the live performance. And that possibility of witnessing a magical connection a band makes with an audience. The Dead is an excellent example. I always thought that Freddie Mercury was the best at this. Ray Davies also has this magic.

You do make a point regarding exceptional shows tipping the scale in ones favor. But I have not seen it yet (Alice Cooper is still on the outside looking in).

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 11:27am


What about Gwar? They took the Alice Cooper thing to the extreme. "Blood" all over the crowd and the floor. They're certainly not known for their recorded music, just their live shows. No way they're HoF material though.

Daft Punk might start gaining a reputation as a must-see live show too.

Posted by mel on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 13:21pm


INDUCT ALL!!

The Diamonds, The Clovers, The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Spinners, The Box Tops, The Chiffons, The Marvelettes, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, The Contours, The Whispers, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Iron Butterfly, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Procol Harum, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Little Feat, Fairport Convention, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Carpenters, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, Free, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, RUN DMC, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs, Metallica, Guns 'N' Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, Hall & Oates, Rufus and Chaka Khan, Wham!

Ella Fitzgerald, Barbra Streisand, Leslie Gore, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Mary Wells, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Helen Reddy, Melissa Manchester, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Stevie Nicks, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Pat Boone, Johnny Mathis, John Coltrane, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Tiny Tim, Ben E. King, Lee Dorsey, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Kris Kristofferson, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Harry Nillson, Jimmy Cliff, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Boz Scaggs, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Warren Zevon, Tom Waits, Eddie Money, George Benson, Al Jarreau, James Ingram, Peabo Bryson, Luther Vandross, Herbie Hancock, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, George Michael,
"Weird Al" Yankovic

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 14:50pm


Hey Roy, I think yopu forgot a few....how about Beethoven, Brahms and Bach or Lawrence Welk, Tommy Dorsey and Glenn Miller or even Slim Whitman and Boxcar Willie or how about Zamfir and Yanni or Kenny G and John Tesh or Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice.

Posted by Brian on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 15:26pm


Brian - please, don't give him any ideas. - he may come up with a secondary list now.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 18:35pm


Dameon, he is just getting ridiculous with his list adding 1 or 2 people all the time.

Posted by Brian on Wednesday, 05.28.08 @ 19:18pm


Beethoven, Brahms and Bach don't count! They're not Rock! They predate rock by thousands of years!

Lawrence Welk, Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, Slim Whitman and Boxcar Willie ---YES! They belong in the Rock Hall! 40s-50s-60s=groundbreaking!

THESE SUCK!:
Zamfir, Yanni, Kenny G and John Tesh are from the 80s and 90s. They were not groundbreaking or innovative! Milli Vanilli wasn't real! and Vanilla Ice=90s one hit wonder with a Bowie-Queen sample in ICE ICE BABY!

Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice SUCK and should not even be listed on this site, but they are!!!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 08:40am


Roy, you are an absolute dense moron.

Posted by shwn on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 10:46am


Hey Shawn - not a big Slim Whitman fan ;-)

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 10:51am


"40s-50s-60s=groundbreaking!" - Roy

You just went and rendered your input absolutely wothless right there. Way to go.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 13:28pm


Roy, you idiot. I wasn't being serious about any of them. You just keep adding people to your list and it is totally ridiculous.

Posted by Brian on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 13:52pm


I know you weren't being serious!! I just decided to play along! Is that okay?

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 13:56pm


sure, if that's what you say.

Posted by Brian on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 14:06pm


Hey everyone,
I just cant believe Three Dog Night Has not been inducted in the Hall Of Fame.
What a great band back in the 70's and I still like listening to them, come on everyone we gotta do something.

Posted by pam on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 17:39pm


"Roy, you are an absolute dense moron." - shwn

Shawn,

When calling someone "an absolute dense moron"...try spelling your own name right.

Posted by Reality Check on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 17:40pm


I know for a fact that some bands are not in the Rock Hall just because Jann Wenner didn't like the way they looked or the way they dressed in the 60s and 70s.

Wenner and other Rolling Stone writers didn't like Chicago members because they had long hair and beards! They didn't like Genesis because Phil Collins also had a beard and didn't have much hair on his head.

At last year's Rock Hall ceremony, Jann Wenner talked about the late Ahmet Ertegun and how he was always dressed up in a suit and had nicely trimmed facial hair. GET IT? ;)

Oh, and Peter Cetera wipes his ass with Rolling Stone magazines!

Jann Wenner doesn't like horns with his guitars.

Chicago was performing one time at a nightclub in the late 60s or early 70s. They started getting all creative and the owner told them to stop! He wasn't paying them to be artsy-fartsy--as he put it!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 19:03pm


Roy -

You are making shit up.

Chicago was on the cover of Rolling Stone once.

Genesis/Phil Collins have been on the cover of Rolling Stone multiple times.

Posted by David on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 20:10pm


If Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone don't like long hair and beards then why are The Grateful Dead in?
Why is David Crosby in twice with CSN and Buffalo Springfield?

Posted by interviewer on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 20:23pm


I THINK THE WHOLE INDUDTION CRITERIA IS A MESS! IT IS WHO YOU KNOW AND ALL ABOUT MONEY! WHEN WILL THOSE WHO REALLY DESERVE THIS AWARD REALLY GET IT! IT SUCKS AND SO DOES THE COMMITTEE! SORRY BUT THAT IS THE WAY I FEEL!

Posted by misty on Friday, 05.30.08 @ 00:15am


I know for a fact that some bands are not in the Rock Hall just because Jann Wenner didn't like the way they looked or the way they dressed in the 60s and 70s. - Roy

Thank you for the morning giggle Roy. Seriously, where do you come up with some of this stuff? Long hair and beards - wow - I never saw a RnR band with long hair.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 05.30.08 @ 04:34am


Chicago was never on the cover of Rolling Stone! Maybe on the side or the corner, but never the center main story!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 05.30.08 @ 06:11am


They were still on the cover even if it was only the corner or side, you idiot.

You know, I think the reason Chicago aren't in is because they suck.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 05.30.08 @ 09:09am


You know, I think the reason Chicago aren't in is because they suck. - Liam

I am not going to get into this conversation; but Chicago, especially the first 7 or 8 years did not suck. They were an excellent band who made some pretty damn good music! And I am really surprised that you would say this.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.2.08 @ 11:56am


Bo Didley - Rest in Peace and thank you. The Bo Didley "beat" has been used by more bands across more sub-genres that one can imagine. His influence covered such artists as the Yardbirds, Stones, G.T. and the Destroyers, The Clash, The Smiths, The Stooges, Bowie, The Who, Jesus and Mary Chain, Patti Smith and GnR; many of whom actually recorded some of Bo's earlier songs. Bo was "influence" in caps!

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.2.08 @ 12:02pm


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame

1986 - 16 inducted
1987 - 23 inducted - BEST YEAR EVER!
1988 - 09 inducted
1989 - 09 inducted

1990 - 16 inducted
1991 - 11 inducted
1992 - 12 inducted
1993 - 11 inducted
1994 - 10 inducted
1995 - 09 inducted
1996 - 09 inducted
1997 - 10 inducted
1998 - 08 inducted
1999 - 10 inducted

2000 - 14 inducted
2001 - 11 inducted
2002 - 08 inducted
2003 - 09 inductes
2004 - 08 inducted
2005 - 07 inducted
2006 - 07 inducted
2007 - 05 inducted - WORST YEAR EVER!
2008 - 08 inducted

Posted by Roy on Friday, 06.6.08 @ 10:35am


"In your list of influential artists, I couldn't seem to find any artist that had sold less than 10,000 albums."

I know that is an old discussion but I have just thought that Robert Johnson have never sold 10,000 albums ( at least when he was alive) and he is very influential in rock music

Posted by roméo on Wednesday, 06.18.08 @ 11:20am


With fuel prices soaring, I expect the Northeastern corridor of the US to have a very intense musical summer. A lot of indie bands just cannot afford to tour the midwest states because there is so much room to cover. It is just not cost effective. But the line between Phil - Boston with NYC square in the middle is actually pretty short. I have heard that some bands are trying to re-set their schedules and get onto the East Coast. Hopefully there are enough clubs to make it worth their while.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 05:36am


Send Your Letters!

Joel Peresman, President
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10104

1-212-484-1754
http://www.rockhall.com

Terry Stewart, President
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum
1100 Rock and Roll Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(East Ninth Street at Lake Erie)

Museum Offices:1-216-781-7625

Jann Wenner
Rollingstone Main Offices, 2nd Floor
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-0298
1-212-484-1616

Jon Landau Management
158 Rowayton Avenue
Rowayton, Connecticut, 06853
1-203-854-0528

I'm still looking for Anthony DeCurtis!

Posted by Roy on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 08:39am


You can email Anthony DeCurtis!!

Tell him to induct now!


Anthony DeCurtis
ADeCurtis@aol.com

Writer for Rolling Stone and nominator for Rock Hall.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 09:14am


21st Century artists should not be inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. Nothing is original anymore. It's all been done before. These people are not Rock Gods! They are not dinosaurs! They are not the originators! Enough is enough! People should stop making new music and find something better to do with their time. The music industry is dead! It was announced numerous times at the 2008 Rock Hall! People should move on with their lives. Get into real estate, become a millionaire, go to the gym, have sex, get your blood type, become Alergists and stop eating foods that they are allergic to. Stop eating junk food! Stop watching television! Make love instead.

Once all the 20th Century artists have been inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, the Rock Hall should stop making annual induction ceremonies. This is not like sports. Plus, you don't see new dinosaurs appearing in museums every year, but there have been new findings in recent years. If people still visit dinosaur museums, people will still visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum even if they no longer make induction ceremonies.

It's time to move on! The music industry is dead!

INDUCT ALL!

The Diamonds, The Clovers, The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Spinners, The Box Tops, The Shangri-Las, The Chantels, The Chiffons, The Marvelettes, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, The Contours, The Whispers, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, The Buckinghams, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Iron Butterfly, Foghat, Blue Cheer, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Procol Harum, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Little Feat, Fairport Convention, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Carpenters, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, Free, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, RUN DMC, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs, Metallica, Guns 'N' Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, England Dan and John Ford Coley, Hall & Oates, Rufus and Chaka Khan, Tears For Fears, Wham!

Ella Fitzgerald, Big Mama Thornton, Barbra Streisand, Leslie Gore, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Mary Wells, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Helen Reddy, Melissa Manchester, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Stevie Nicks, Kate Bush, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Pat Boone, Johnny Mathis, John Coltrane, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Tiny Tim, Ben E. King, Lee Dorsey, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Barry Manilow, Kris Kristofferson, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Harry Nillson, Jimmy Cliff, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Boz Scaggs, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Warren Zevon, Tom Waits, Jimmy Buffet, Eddie Money, George Benson, Al Jarreau, James Ingram, Peabo Bryson, Luther Vandross, Herbie Hancock, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, George Michael, "Weird Al" Yankovic

Posted by Roy on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 10:42am


Liam - at least you know that your lists are nowhere near as bad and insufferable as Roy's ;-D

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 10:50am


"Nothing is original anymore." - Roy

Shutup. Now.

And I know I'm not the only one whose tired of your incessant BS.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 10:59am


Music has evolved and advanced for thousands of years, but all of a sudden it's over because some dumbass named Roy says it is.

Go to hell, Roy.

Posted by William on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 12:52pm


Perhaps the Great and Powerful OZ of Future Rock Hall can send a message to Roy to stop with his endless lists and commentary on matters which he has already listed a thousand times before.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 13:05pm


Can the Great and Powerful Oz put a stop to all of Roy's ramblings?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 13:08pm


Ooooops - I got a message from this site that said my first comment wasn't accepted because it looked too much like spam. Thus, I edited it. And now they are both there and with this makes three.

Clearly it is a slow day at the office for me.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 13:10pm


I am with allyou guys. Roy's lists and ramblings are getting quite old. ENOUGH already, we have had it.

Posted by Brian on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 13:21pm


Also, Rest In Peace George Carlin, We will all miss you.

Posted by Brian on Monday, 06.23.08 @ 13:22pm


its hard to believe Genesis Yes and Yardbirds havnt made it? same with Rush, Steve Miller, Foreigner and Blue Oyster... they seem like they shoulve been put in before Madonna and Prince..

Also the influences like the motown and blues singers seems like they should be in a different hall of fame

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has to do a better job

Posted by Matt on Saturday, 07.12.08 @ 13:12pm


Matt, The Yardbirds ARE in the RRHOF already

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Saturday, 07.12.08 @ 17:37pm


Eventually all those acts will end up getting in. It really has more to do w/ timing then anything else. This Hall has always served as a intense form of nostalgia for the voating board. Created during the mid-80's, when the baby boomers who manned it were starting to lose their grip over rock, it represented a way to avoid synthesizers, hair bands, etc. The prog rockers who were left out represented the worst case scenario for a bunch of old-timers who had control over this Hall.

Now that 20+ yrs. have passed since they started voting, they are now running into the very thing that caused them to create this in the first place. Given the either/or option between Rush/Genesis and Motley/B. Jovi, they will most likely choose the former, especially as a holding pattern till they can get to P. Jam, Soundgarden, etc. Don't be suprised if the Rush article isn't the first signal of this change in policy.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.12.08 @ 18:29pm


If you look @ other HOF criteria it is usually based on statistics which prove performance over a career. In Rock and Roll it should be similar. The only trick is to determine how to measure R&R statistical measurement criteria. I would like to offer a few:

1. How the Performer/Bands music is regarded by fans spanning several generations.

2. The scope of musical professionalism displayed by the performer/band over the duration of it's exsistence.

Posted by jas cross on Tuesday, 07.15.08 @ 16:33pm


While it mmay be admirable to suggest some sort of system for statistical measurement, there can be none. Rock is not a sport, though the Hall tries to make it out to be one. I noted on another post (I believe it was Beatles or Def Lep) that the only real stats that could be used are record sales, and these do not always tell the whole story behind a band. In regards to what you wrote, a lot of that is already being used by the Hall right now. They say I & I, but many acts that fit the bill are denied entry. You hit the nail on the head w/ what you wrote, but I think a few of the voters have been using your scale for a while now.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 07.15.08 @ 17:08pm


Cheesecrop...The rules for nominating seem to change year in & year out, and I think the nominating committee is painting themselves into a corner. It really is going to be increasingly difficult for them to go back and induct people that they've overlooked or ignored, because the question will most assuredly pop up..."why did it take this long?", which will make them look like idiots.

Also, inducting Madonna really stumps me. Like I stated before, I think that it was a "popularity" nomination instead of one based on merit...they're trying to sell tickets. I feel that it seriously diluted the Hall and made it more of a "Popular Music Hall Of Fame". She simply has no business in a "rock & roll" hall of fame...IMO.

So, who really knows what they're thinking. They seem to be straying from the true essence of rock & roll and a lot of the key people who have innovated and influenced. Just one person's opinion...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 07.15.08 @ 19:46pm


If anyone requested a missing artist recently, they have probably been added now. Check here: http://www.futurerocklegends.com/artists.php
Thanks.

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Tuesday, 07.15.08 @ 20:55pm


Gitarzan - Absolutely right. They have painted themselves into a corner. Question is, can they get their posteriors out of the space in question? Looking at the upcoming list, they have a chance... if they are willing to stretch out. It is a weak field, but as I see it, they can take one of three outlets toward the future:

1. The Safe Route: Playing it safe (as they usually do), they elect what they can out of this weak field -

a. Chili Peppers - No real complaints
b. W. Houston - Safe, but probably in Madonna category
c. Either/Or - S. Asylum/Pet Shop Boys - No real complaints, though the Boys might even be a stretch for this committee

2. The consolidation route - So many solo acts from legendary groups - Let's bypass the solos and give them group recognition:

De Young/Styx, Perry/Journey, Wolf/J. Geils

3. The "we're expanding our horizons" concept -
J&MC, The Pogues, Pet Shop?? - This covers the Madonna gaffe by suggesting that rock is no longer the province of "rawk adn roll!!!" so to speak. This might also bring in the prog groups (classicrocker mentioned Fripp in an earlier post - yes) and maybe even Metallica (a year late, but...)

This is providing they are going to avoid 80's New Wave/Metal. Then it becomes yet a whole different story.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 07.16.08 @ 06:23am


If you look at impact on progressive rock music over the last 30 years+, unique sound, stable band members, in addition to current relevancy, world appreciation in addition to a consistent schedule of deliverable new music it is not just disappointing, but truly bizarre that Rush is not in already.

Posted by Music Librarian on Wednesday, 07.16.08 @ 14:17pm


3. Confusing history.
Deep Purple probably has 30 current and former members, denoting by Mach I, II, III, IV, V etc. Who do you nominate, who do you exclude? Nobody, it makes your head hurt just thinking about it.



Bands with more than 9 members who were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame- ALL INDUCTED!:

Parliament-Funkadelic - 16
The Grateful Dead - 12

So this blows the Future Rock Hall website's theory about what the Rock Hall takes into consideration when deciding on who to induct!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 11:29am


3. Confusing history.
Deep Purple probably has 30 current and former members, denoting by Mach I, II, III, IV, V etc. Who do you nominate, who do you exclude? Nobody, it makes your head hurt just thinking about it.



Bands with more than 9 members who were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame- ALL INDUCTED!:

Parliament-Funkadelic - 16
The Grateful Dead - 12

So this blows the Future Rock Hall website's theory about what the Rock Hall takes into consideration when deciding on who to induct!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 11:29am


OK, you've got me here Roy... I'm confused.

It seems to me that if your going to put Purple in, you've gotta put them all in. While the effect might resemble the Druid processional to Stonehenge during solstice, you'd just have to figure it into the TV time. I'm assuming that the Purple going in (if ever) is going to be the 68-73 edition musically, but it might be perceived as insulting to any current members if they were not invited up on stage.

I think that's what your talking about. ???

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 16:32pm


Not true - just look at which members of the Temptations were inducted and look at all those who actually sang with them. There was a time when there were two sets of Temptations touring at the same time.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 16:59pm


This is from the Rock Hall Politics Page
Type in Rock Hall Politics in the Future Rock Hall search engine to find it.

Comment of the week
10.01.07 11:04 PM | Permalink
This comment was posted by Matt on 9/29/07 in the 2008 Nominees thread. It has a number of astute observations about the realities of the Rock and

Roll Hall of Fame induction process:
From paying special interest to the nomination process over the past few years, I've been able to draw several conclusions about the selection process.

If you have any insight or theories of your own, please share.

THINGS THAT WILL WORK IN YOUR FAVOR

1. Being a larger than life figure.
The Rock Hall wants to grab headlines, and will need to fill seats and get ratings from the ceremony. Madonna is an enduring pop culture phenomenon, and can be seen as the home run, marquee talent. Only Michael Jackson is really comparable here.

2. Being critically acclaimed AND commercially successful.
Critics and the masses are two distinct camps. If you have favor with both, your chances are excellent. Beastie Boys have sold very well over the course their career--Licensed to Ill was the top-selling rap album of the 80's, and check the wikipedia entry for its accolades. Paul's Boutique, huge critical favorite. Ill Communication topped the charts.

3. Continued success and longevity.
Just because your band is still together, doesn't mean it's relevant. If you've been in the game for decades, and get radio airplay with artists 20 years younger, you have a great chance. Avoid being labeled a nostalgia act.

4. Survival in the face of changing tastes.
Grunge destroyed hair metal. Bands like U2 and R.E.M. adapted and even elevated their careers. Survive cultural sea changes.

5. Have friends in high places.
If you're buddies with Jann Wenner, Jon Landau, Bruce Springsteen or Dave Marsh, you will probably get in.

6. Be old.
The selections are made by crusty dinosaurs. Sonic Youth didn't stand a chance with this committee.

7. Affirmative Action.
The nominating committee will always select several black candidates of wildly varying qualifications. Soul, Blues, R&B, Funk clearly have favor over some guitar-based, predominantly white sub-genres.

THINGS THAT WON'T WORK IN YOUR FAVOR

1. Being prog, hard rock or metal.
Clearly these are not committee favorites. Much of the artists classified as such are boring, pretentious, overly indulgent, or polarizing. Still, many others are great. But it doesn't really matter.

2. Lots of filler.
If you have several essential recordings, but lots of misfires, your legacy will be watered down. Concise and impactful careers, and consistenly good artists will be viewed more highly than low-percentage hitters (3 strikeouts for every home run).

3. Confusing history.
Deep Purple probably has 30 current and former members, denoting by Mach I, II, III, IV, V etc. You do you nominate, who do you exclude? Nobody, it makes your head hurt just thinking about it.

4. Being overtly commercial at the expense of your art.
Bon Jovi and Journey, you lowest common denominator power balladeers, you don't stand a chance.

5. Enemies in high places.
Jann Wenner hates the Monkees. So they won't get in. Dave Marsh hates Kiss, so they won't get in either.

Can anyone think of any others?


Comments | Trackback

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 17:25pm


roy man, help me out please? under what wont work number 4 "Being overtly commercial at the expense of your art.
Bon Jovi and Journey, you lowest common denominator power balladeers, you don't stand a chance." what does that exactly mean?

Posted by Jessie on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 20:30pm


Jessie...I think that's purely subjective because most artists want to be true to what they believe in, but no one wants to starve, either. I know that in the 60's a lot of artists got a little jaded by "idol worship" and figured they could release "crap" and anyone would buy it, especially during the Haight-Ashbury thing. Of course, that's gone on sporadically since then.

As for the statement about Bon Jovi and Journey, I guess that"s purely subjective, too. A lot of groups could fall under that catagory, I suppose. Personally, I could never understand the term "power ballad", if you figure it out let me know...lol!!! To me a ballad is a ballad, no matter the approach.

I will admit from my observations that pro or con, some of the inductions have seemed to be "biased".

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 21:14pm


Jessie...If you ever get a chance, watch the video "The Song Remains The Same". It's footage of a Led Zeppelin concert at Madison Square Garden in about '74, I think (Dameon might know the exact year), mixed in with little bits of "philosophy" by each member of the band...pretty cool stuff and a chance to see Zeppelin at their peak, so to speak.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 21:20pm


i know what you mean gitarzan, i have never understood that phrase, exactly a ballad is just that.and you're right newer artists nowadays write crap just because they know people love them and they'll buy whatever they put out, pretty much with those artits, if they can find a rhyming word with sex, they'll be a hit! i never understood quite how inductees are inducted, then again not too many things are black and white simple. but i will definitly check the Zepplin footage, you think it'd be online?

Posted by jessie on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 21:36pm


I think it is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnrch6NQ1Ug

Led Zep in Madison Square Garden, '73 has to be one of the greatest concerts I ever saw (on video, not in real life).

Nr. 4 ("being overtly commercial") is indeed subjective. But it is one that could help you understand why some bands are not inducted. Some acts are generally perceived (by the music press) to be sell-outs, keeping their music simple, happy or formulaic to reach a large number of people. These acts are rarily provocative, controversial or complex. Bon Jovi has been accused of this, just like KISS. And off course, it's the main reason why most pop acts are no critic's darlings. It doesn't mean it's true, but it is how they are generally seen.

That doesn't mean there's no hope for these acts. Sometimes, years later, the press will admit they have underestimated an act. Their songs turned out to be much, much better than they were perceived back in the day. It happened to ABBA, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Cheap Trick, The Carpenters, it happened to hiphop, and it might be happening to Rush right now. Neil Diamond's latest album got great reviews and I recently read a positive review of the latest Mötley Crüe album.

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 03:42am


Zep at the Garden in 1973 was amazing. That was the year they were robbed of over a $ Quarter Million in NYC.

Jessie - if you want to see true Zep, then I would check out the Zep DVD set that they released in 2003-2004.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 04:11am


First of all who are the Leaders of the Music Industry and who put them in charge of our Rock and Roll, thats right our ROCK and ROLL! The bands that create and perform the music we love and the people that listen to it, buy the albums and go to the concerts, US are the leaders of the music industry. How did we lose control? GREED. The minute corporate figured out how to make big money from rock and roll it was over. They destroyed rock radio, they destroyed the record industry, they destroyed concerts (corporate sponsors and Ticket Monster)and they are destroying any integrity that the so called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame might have had, give the power back to the people. This is my attempt to set criteria for induction to the hall of shame.

Rock and Roll is guitar driven no questions asked. Guitar driven to me means electrified, power chords, riffs, licks, driving rhythms with Bass and Drums. Buddy Holly to Muse can anybody say Power Trio, stripped down to the bare bone making incredible music. Any other instruments just make it that much better. The nominees must have a body of work that is three (3) LP's or better of at least 75% original music written by the band members. It must be a solid body of work not just a few hits with filler and the music must pass the test of time and still be enjoyable to listen to today. Forget about what or who they influenced or airplay since that was controlled by corporate or what the critics said it's just about writing and performing the music we love and are so passionate about. It is a popularity contest because the most popular bands are the ones that got it and played rock and roll. Now how do we take back control and have a say? Anybody?
SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 17:42pm


You never had control over the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The only way to honour the people you want to see honoured is by having your own hall of fame. I'm just curious about one thing. How are you gonna decide who'll get inducted? Let everybody vote? Because before you know it you won't be honouring the best and most popular acts, but instead you'll be inducting the acts with the best organized fanclub. In the end you will be just as relevant as the MTV Music Awards.

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 18:49pm


Claw, there has to be a way to take control otherwise we will just talk about this forever and nothing will get done.

The people are the ones who decide who is popular. I don't think to many bands would last long if they played to empty venues and nobody bought their music. Don't give up so easily. I don't want the crazies running the asylum but doing nothing is crazier.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by Space Trucker on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 19:02pm


thanks for your help, gitarzan, the claw, and dameon. i went to the music store to see if they had that zepplin dvd set, they didnt so i ordered it, cant wait to get, thanks for the suggestion. Rock on boys.

Posted by jessie on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 22:54pm


To Everyone,

I am new to this website and I think it is awesome! I love all the interaction and passion everyone has for Rock and Roll. I have made a few posts and read many.

I don't know if this subject has been discussed but I would like to pose this question.

Can any of you or anyone for that matter define Rock and Roll? Is there one true definition?

It would seem to me that in order to discuss what bands or artists should or shouldn't be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that you would fisrt have to define Rock and Roll.

History shows that the RNRHOF is all over the place as well as the posts on this website, proving that there is a huge gray area as to what constitutes rock and roll.

From Robin Trower to The Back street Boys, Dick Dale to Madonna, Scorpions to 50 Cent, I'm confused.

Please don't write "Rock and Roll is whatever you want it to be" or "Rock and Roll is a way of life" I am truly looking for a serious definition of Rock and Roll. Maybe together we can come up with one. Because I know one thing for damn sure, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame doesn't have a f#@*ing clue.

Space Trucker

P.S. As you read this post I am doing extensive research about the origins of Rock and Roll and I am learning some amazing things.

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 20:44pm


am new to this website and I think it is awesome! I love all the interaction and passion everyone has for Rock and Roll. I have made a few posts and read many.

I don't know if this subject has been discussed but I would like to pose this question.

Can any of you or anyone for that matter define Rock and Roll? Is there one true definition?

It would seem to me that in order to discuss what bands or artists should or shouldn't be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that you would fisrt have to define Rock and Roll.

History shows that the RNRHOF is all over the place as well as the posts on this website, proving that there is a huge gray area as to what constitutes rock and roll.

From Robin Trower to The Back street Boys, Dick Dale


To me the roots are Blues, Boogie Woogie and some Blue Grass Early Country... Heck ya might as well put in Cajan Gosple Spainish Guitar and Latin ,African Native American.. And Eskimo with Some Classical... ... Really it is all that went before in the Home Grown USA..

But I am sure Many know more than me..

Posted by mrxyz on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 21:08pm


SpaceTrucker...Man, that question is loaded like an A-Bomb...LOL!!!!! You are doing the right thing, though...research it as much as you can, and you'll begin to see how popular music branches out and distinguishes itself, especially since the 50's, IMO. It is said Alan Freed used the term first, but it had popped up back in the 40's. You might say it was a "train wreck" of jazz, blues, country, gospel, etc...

If I can answer anything for you, I'd sure like to give it a shot. As far as "what does rock & roll mean???", whew...gonna have to give that some thought! I don't know that there is an answer, and I'm not saying that to be evasive.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 21:32pm


Gitarzan,

Thanks for your comments.

My research is proving fruitful. I discovered that a song on the first offering by Montrose (an album that totally rocks) "Good Rockin' Tonight" which I thought was an original is in reality a cover written by Roy Brown in 1947, NINETEEN FORTY SEVEN! and recorded by Wynonie Harris. With the opening line "Have you heard the news, theres good rockin' tonight" thats rock and roll.

My questions isn't so much the meaning of rock and roll but how can we come up with a measuring stick for qualifying a band to be considered rock and roll. How come it is so easy to determine what bands are country or rap or jazz but rock and roll encompasses just about everything.

Their must be a way to come up with some form of measurable criteria. I know rock and roll is about rebellion and non-conformity but we need some guidelines that rule out the non-rockers.

I realize the label "Pop Music" was coined for bands that didn't fit anywhere but now seem to be falling under the rock and roll label. If a group or artist is considered to be Rap than how can they be considered Rock and Roll? Can they be both?

If rock and roll is evolving let me ask this, can something that evolves into something total different still be considered what it was originally? Example: Tadpole to a frog.

My point is if rock and roll is allowed to evolve into something thats not rock and roll anymore then why is it still considered rock and roll. Rap is rap, Mowtown is Mowtown, boy bands are boy bands, pop is pop and so on.

To me rock and roll has to be guitar driven music accompanied by Bass and Drums (other instruments optional) with musicians that play their own instruments, write their own material (with a cover now and then) and do it with an attitude.

SpaceTrucker



Posted by Space Trucker on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 23:01pm


Wynonie Harris, the biggest snub in the 'early influence' category. I think it's ridiculous that they haven't inducted anyone in that category since 2000, especially when someone like Wynonie Harris is still out. But that's another discussion.

Biological evolution isn't really a good metaphor for the development of genres. Genres mix better than species, and not-related music styles can be combined quite easily. A frog, a toad and a newt have a common ancestor, but can't interbreed. In music, an artist can combine two or three very different genres quite easily. Punk and folk, reggae and techno, metal and hip-hop etc. For me, that also means you can never say "pop is pop". It's just not that simple. Especially in music, many artists place themselves on the border between those clear genres, forming new genres by combining existing ones.

But could it still be called rock n roll, after all those mixes and combinations? It depends on your definition. You use rock aesthetics to define the genre: writing your own material, playing your own instruments, attitude, rebellion and non-conformity etc. These are values especially considered important in rock communities.

It's precisely why I don't like the name 'Rock n Roll Hall of Fame': people will immediately associate it with those values, and will find many artists in the hall of fame that didn't play their own instruments, didn't write their own songs or weren't as rebellious.

For me, those values are not the definition of rock n roll, but the ideal version of rock music. My definition of rock n roll is way more narrow: The 50s genre that came forth out of a combination between (among others) rhythm & blues and country, was characterized by three chords and a strong back beat, had heroes like Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard and Buddy Holly, and became fatally wounded in 1959.

Most of the acts generally considered to be important rock n roll musicians wouldn't fit your definition: Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino and Little Richard are more piano- than guitar driven and Elvis Presley, The King himself, didn't write his own songs.

I do think there should be a place that celebrates both Chuck Berry and Madonna, Led Zeppelin and Aretha Franklin, The Sex Pistols and James Taylor, Bob Dylan and Run DMC, Pink Floyd and Bob Marley. They have more in common than you might think. I just wished it had a different name.

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 05:00am


One or two things to consider (that regrettably will muddy up the works more than clear it up) -

"If rock & roll is evolving, let me ask this: can something that evolves into something totally diff. still be considered what it was orig.? Ex. Tadpole into Frog"

On several earlier posts I argued that R&R cannot be judged through decades very well, due to the problems of technology (instrumental & otherwise). Allow me to bring Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix, & Korn into the picture for some detail. Holly was the first person to use a Fender Stratocaster in a rock band, but Hendrix is credited as the master of both Strat & guitar in general. I once read a definition of "acid rock" as being music that was meant to heighten the effects of a drug trip. Question: do you think Hendrix could create a convincing form of acid rock using only the tech. that Holly had a decade earlier? No extensive multi-tracking, no wah pedal, no modern (for 67) distortion...

Holly vs Hendrix - advantage Hendrix (frog into tadpole)

Hendrix is said to be #1 guitarist - ever. Yet Korn (Godsmack, Disturbed, heck, all of nu-metal) were wielding 7-string guitars, an instrument Hendrix never even saw. How can Hendrix (or anyone from the past) be considered #1 still? We can sit here & say one's better than the other, but this is different. THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED! How do you get around that? You Don't, cause you can't.

Hendrix vs Korn - advantage Korn (tadpole into frog)

And so it goes w/ all of rock. The inherent trap is the tech. that's driving it. Pro-Tools for Britney vs 7-string, yet nothing is stopping rockers from using pro-tools... or from Brit tossing in a 7-string.

Perhaps the real question is: is the tech. being applied to a music we recognize as rock, or being applied to a new form of music we recognize as having the intent to rock?

I sincerely apologize to one and all for the length of this post. Under the circumstances I felt brevity was not an option.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 05:10am


CC - It still comes down to the song. Does the artist or band have a song that people want to listen to? Do they connect with the audience? You can be an olympian musician with the best technology behind you, but if you don't have the song, it really isn't going to mean squat.

You may influence with your adaptability to the newer technology; you may even innovate some completely new style, but if you cannot write a verse, lyrically or melodically and then create the bridge to the chorus, then it doesn't matter what superhero feats you perform.

Anyway, that is just my opinion.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 07:55am


cheesecrop stated: 'Hendrix is said to be #1 guitarist - ever. Yet Korn (Godsmack, Disturbed, heck, all of nu-metal) were wielding 7-string guitars, an instrument Hendrix never even saw.'

Yes, I'm sure Mr. Hendrix would have been completely baffled by a 7 string guitar & probably would have gone back to Seattle & become a barista (snicker).

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 09:13am


No one played rock guitar like Jimi before or after. He made love to his guitar eveytime he play it and it orgasomed every single time. No one will ever play guitar like him no matter how many strings or what kind of equipment thay use.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by Space Trucker on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 11:17am


Great posts on Rock and Roll Definition.

Let me address items from each post so for regarding this topic.

I still believe rock and roll has to be electric guitar driven.

Lets say the birth of Rock and Roll is 1947. We are celebrating 50 years plus. I know a hand full of huge early influences played piano, but only a hand full. It quickly evolved into electric guitar driven and has been ever since. Even Elton John's and Billy Joel's hardest rocking songs are guitar driven.

I agree that the core of most of the controvery with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is in the name itself and should be changed.

Claw you said you didn't agree with my definition of Rock and Roll and thats what this topic is all about. So what is your definition?

Cheesecrop the evolution of Rock and Roll is essential it would get pretty boring if it didn't. The three bands you mentioned in the Tadpole to Frog analogy are all without question Rock and Roll and did not evolve into something completely different they just helped Rock and Roll evolve.

Last night I was watching a BBC concert of Cat Stevens and I quickly came to the conclusion that it was not Rock and Roll. Two miked accoustics guitars, electric bass no drums Sitting on chairs playing music that would put my Grandmother to sleep. Even though it was an evolution of Rock and Roll, 4/4, verse, chorus, an ocassional lead even long hair it was clearly "pop music" not anywhere near Rock and Roll. I truly believe "Pop Music is something totaly different. What is your defenition of Rock and Roll?

I agree with Dameon, the song is the bottom line. Fifty plus years of Rock and Roll has proven that you don't have to be the greatest any thing except a great song writer to play Rock and Roll.

Motown evolved into something totaly different but it's roots are Rock and Roll, Pop Music evolved into something totaly different but it's roots are Rock and Roll, Rap evolved into something totaly different but it's roots are Rock and Roll and so on.

Rock and Roll has to be guitar driven with a heavy driving rhythm section. And played with an attitude. A Rock and Roll Attitude.

Gitarzan, what do you say? Whats your definition.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by Space Trucker on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 16:31pm


Interesting theory ST, but I would have to disagree with you. First off, RnR does not have to be either guitar or electric driven. Rock and Roll is more of an attitude than anything else.

Rock and Roll was originally blues driven. The blues was played on accoustic guitars, harmonica's and pianos. There have been various reinventions of it through the decades. There was the influence of skiffle, Gospel and other music types thrown into the mix. Pop music is just a contraction of Popular music which has been played by musicians through the years, including Elvis, Little Ritchie, Beach Boys, Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, etc. Popular music has changed through the generations, Sinatra all the way through the BSB to whoever the flavor of the month is now.

Today, music itself has been broken down into more sub-genres that I care to even think about. And Pop is just one of these sub-genres. It should not be excluded from the Hall of Fame because it is not guitar driven. Inclusion should be based on importance in both its era and the complete history of music.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 17:15pm


Okay, Fair enough Dameon,

Your definition of Rock and Roll is attitude so that leaves the bands and artists to be nominated and inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame wide open, from Beethoven to the Back Street Boys.

Your opinion that it should encompass the history of music is great. But I have a huge problem with the thought that future generations will be lead to believe that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are the end all purveyors of all that is Rock and Roll and anyone they enshrine is Rock and Roll, to me that is a travesty.

I have such a problem with the name Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and who they are inducting.

SpaceTrucker

"Its only Rock and Roll, but I like it"

Posted by Space Trucker on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 18:33pm


Paul in KY - "Yeah, I'm pretty sure Mr. Hendrix would be completely baffled by a 7 string guitar & probably would have gone back to Seattle and become a barista"

Seeing as how you completely missed my point, I'll attempt another go round here. Hendrix could not have created something that resembled "acid rock" using the equip. of 1957. Holly couldn't have done it. If you can picture 50's rockers dropping acid and trying to "enhance" as it were, their trip by playing rcokabilly as spaced out as they could, you'd get my point here. Hendrix has a natural advantage over Holly by dint of the era he's playing in. Likewise, the musicians of our modern universe carry that same advantage. Since the dawn of the 70's guitar technology & technique have radically altered. Hendrix never once in his entire life heard anyone play in the style of Eddie Van Halen, yet I'm supposed to accept that finger-tapping techniques somehow don't apply here? I have no doubt he could have figured out the 7-string, but nevertheless he never once actually played one. The instrument has it's own qualities (admittedly not a giant stretch, BUT STILL...). Yet once again, somehow this isn't supposed to apply?

It's the equivalent of someone from the 19th century telling me that I should accept Nap Lajoie or Honus Wagner as the best ballplayer of all-time, regardless of any alterations to the game. Just shut up, stop thinking, and blindly acccept w/out question. I can't do that w/ them, nor can I do it here.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 19:01pm


What's a Barista?

SpaceTrucker

Posted by Space Trucker on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 19:29pm


Okay, CC...I get where you're coming from now. Could you imagine Les Paul creating those wonderful devices and techniques and then thinking "I wonder what this would sound like on an acid trip"?? ROFL!!! It makes me laugh just thinking about it!!

It's called progression and innovation. Even though I don't think Hendrix was the greatest ever (you're right ST, no one has sounded exactly like him since, simply because the great ones strive to do different things or emulate), he was definitely innovative and unafraid to try it out on the masses.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 20:01pm


S.T. - To be honest with you, I think the RnR HoF is a sham. It is everything that is the establishment and the whole point of RnR was that it was anti-establishment.

I am not saying that everything should be included in this Hall. All I am saying is that Rock is more than just the electric guitar. And believe me, I have played the Electric Guitar for over 35 years and to me, nothing is hotter except for a really beautiful woman.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 08.12.08 @ 23:43pm


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame

240 inductees in 23 years.

AVERAGE # OF INDUCTEES PER YEAR - 10

1986 - 16 inductees
1987 - 23 inductees - BEST YEAR EVER!
1988 - 09 inductees
1989 - 09 inductees

1990 - 16 inductees
1991 - 11 inductees
1992 - 12 inductees
1993 - 11 inductees
1994 - 10 inductees
1995 - 09 inductees
1996 - 09 inductees
1997 - 10 inductees
1998 - 08 inductees
1999 - 10 inductees

2000 - 14 inductees
2001 - 11 inductees
2002 - 08 inductees
2003 - 09 inductees
2004 - 08 inductees
2005 - 07 inductees
2006 - 07 inductees
2007 - 05 inductees - WORST YEAR EVER!
2008 - 08 inductees

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 07:02am


Space Trucker, a 'barista' is a term for someone who operates a coffee/expresso machine. Given that Starbucks is a Seattle company & Mr. Hendrix hailed from Seattle, I threw that in there to complete my snarky comment.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 07:38am


Cheesecrop commented: 'Hendrix never once in his entire life heard anyone play in the style of Eddie Van Halen, yet I'm supposed to accept that finger-tapping techniques somehow don't apply here?'

Now, I am no expert at all on guitar playing (cannot play one myself). However, is it completely accepted that Mr. Hendrix never tried playing a guitar like Mr. van Halen? Can you only do this 'finger-tapping technique' on a 7 string guitar? How do you know Mr. Hendrix didn't experiment with a playing style similar to Mr. Van Halen's & then decided he preferred another style? You know, he didn't only play a guitar when he was on stage or in a studio, he did alot of practicing and experimenting (how do you end up playing a guitar with your teeth).

(snip a liitle)

Another quote: 'It's the equivalent of someone from the 19th century telling me that I should accept Nap Lajoie or Honus Wagner as the best ballplayer of all-time, regardless of any alterations to the game.'

I personally think Honus Wagner was probably the best player of all time. If not the best, then top 5.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 07:49am


Your right about not knowing if Hendrix tried Eddie's technoque in private. I'm willing to bet he didn't, though, and here's why. When EVH did "Eruption" on the debut album it was hailed as a major breakthrough. I cannot honestly recall where I read this, but among those who noted it was Frank Zappa, who allegedly called Eddie & thanked him for making the guitar interesting again (in so many words). It strikes me that someone like Hendrix, mindful of what could be done on guitar, would have tried anything to separate himself from the pack (esp. if the pack is Clapton/Page/Santana, etc.) yet there is no proof in any of his recordings that he even thought about, much less knew how to incorporate finger tapping techniques into his work. Certainly a contemporary like Zappa would have spotted it & perhaps called EVH out in regards to it.

By the way, my subjective opinion of Wagner is that he is one of the top 5 as well. It's my objective opinion speaking in those last lines.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 08:21am


While everyone is naming guitarists; let's remember two things. When Clapton and Townsend first saw Jimi play, they thought for sure life was going to change for the guitarist. Both were truly blown away and somewhat itimidated.

And then there was one guitarist who was not and his name was Jeff Beck. As far as I am concerned, he will always be on-top of the heap.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 08:52am


Thank you Cheesecrop for your response re Eddie Van Halen. I too really doubt that Mr. Hendrix did do the same thing as Mr. Van Halen (I just wondered if it had been clearly determined among 'rock scholars' that he never used the same techniques as Mr. Van Halen).

Great minds think alike re Wagner, eh?

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 11:02am


Dameon said: 'And then there was one guitarist who was not and his name was Jeff Beck. As far as I am concerned, he will always be on-top of the heap.'

Is it true, Dameon, that Mr. Beck basically taught Mr. Clapton how to play guitar (like a professional)? I thought I had read that somewhere.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 11:04am


Paul - I don't know of it is true or not. I would doubt it. I do know that when Page joined the Yardbirdss, he would hate doing duel guitar leads with Beck because Jeff's genius would just take over and Page would be dumbfounded. I saw Beck sharing the stage with Clapton and Page and the Ronnie Laine ARMS concerts and I can tell you that he made them both look like 2nd raters.

Beck has the technical virtuosity of Clapton, the Soul of Hendrix and the genius of Zappa. Who kknows what his career would have been if he was able to sing even a little bit.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 08.13.08 @ 11:46am


We still have 17 years before 21st Century artists can be inducted!

That's 17 years to hope that all charting musicians from the 50s, 60s and 70s will be inducted!

21st Century music should not be in the same museum with 20th Century music!!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 12:54pm


21st Century music should not be in the same museum with 20th Century music!! (Roy)

This is similiar to what my father used to tell me in 1966 right before he would sit me down and force me to listen to Bach, Mozart, Gershwin Brothers, Stan Getz, Buddy Rich, Enrico Caruso, the Dorsey Brothers, etc. oops - almost forgot Sinatra. Of course we all prefer the music of our generation, but do not put down music that you don't know.

Everything from the 50's - 70's? In fact - I think we are done with the 50's bands for sure.

Please stop and think before you put fingers to keyboard.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 15:30pm


The Digital Dream Door website lists eligible artists for the Rock Hall into 10 categories.

QUALIFICATIONS (on a scale of 1-10)

1 - Non-existant
2 - Mostly Insignificant
3 - Recognizable, But Minor Artist
4 - Modest Accomplishments
5 - Worth Examining, But Will Often Fall Short
6 - Strong Case To Be Made
7 - Solid Choice
8 - Unquestioned Credentials
9 - Dominant Artist
10 - The Immortals

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 18:23pm


Here's a novel idea (for which Dameon will probably shoot me...lol)...to be straight on everyone's feelings about the induction process, pick a current inductee who you feel has absolutely NO business in the RRHOF, and explain why you feel that way, and then be subjective on how you think they got inducted.

My pick here will undoubtedly be Jann Wenner. I mean, why??? Rolling Stone isn't the see-all know-all about rock that they seem to think they are, they certainly weren't the first magazine of it's kind. I think a magazine like Guitar Player has been every bit as influential...is the founder of that magazine in there?? Let me think...NO!!!! I think that it's just incredible the amount of vanity this guy has!!! There's just on rhyme or reason to it!!!

There's another magazine I can think of that's made strong satirical statements about music, politics, entertainment, etc... Let's demand that the founder of MAD Magazine be inducted!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 18:44pm


I can name a few who I don't feel belong. I am confused as to perceived influence and actual influence.

There are Sledge, Rickey Nelson, Bobby Darin, Van Morrison, Paul McCartney (solo career), Jackson Browne and a few others. Personally, I still don't see anything special about the Talking Heads either. There is also a female artist who is perceived to have influenced the punk/underground indie scene. And all I can say is that the critics and magazines may have pumped her up more than she deserved. She couldn't sing and she certainly was not some poet of my generation. We used to all laugh at her when she used to get on stage back in the 70's at CBGB's. I guess I will never understand what all the hoopla is about her.

Horses! Horses ass is more like it.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 20:16pm


Dameon...I have this sneaking hunch I know who you're talking about. I know that feeling of confusion, too. I think that in Rock & Roll, influences...namely the early ones, are clearly defined because their names keep popping up when the truly great artists are asked, and you hear it in their music.

I used to think that was a pretty good measuring stick as far as "influences" go.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 20:32pm


Roy - awesome call w/ the Digital Dream Door list. Had we had this when the immortals list first hit, who knows where that thread would have gone. It probably belongs there as well.

Now this may freak you gents out (Big D & Gitar) but my choice for most overrated figure in the Hall is Eric Clapton. Yes you heard right. I am speaking of his solo career. I fully understand the Yardbirds & Cream inductions, & as a run of success goes, the Bluesbreakers/Ybirds/Cream/Blind Faith run has to be one of the best, if not the best, ever. But what of his solo stuff? Most of his hype sits on "Layla", but if you count that as D & the Dominoes, where does that put him? "Let it Rain" is solid. Everyone will say "I Shot the Sheriff", but what is it really? A watered down cover of a Marley track. Didn't Pat Boone get dumped on for doing this same crap w/ Little Richard? "Lay Down Sally"? Released at the same time Van Halen was doing Eruption, it shows how far the man who once stood next to Hendrix had fallen. "Wonderful Tonight"? I suggest a mash-up w/ Smashing Pumpkins "Tonight Tonight" - we could call it "Wonderful Night-Night", a celebration of soporific inducement. He's got one really great track - "Cocaine". This hardly seems worthy of the Hall. EC rode his 60's accomplishments further than anyone else ever did. Solid solo career? Yes. But only "Solid".

Roy's Dig. Dream Door list (modified for EC):

Bluesbreakers - 6
Yardbirds - 7
Cream - 8
B. Faith - 5
Solo - 5 (at most)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 05:52am


CC - I have no problme with you calling Clapton's solo career over-rated. I have said for years that he has been nothing more that a lounge singer since the late 70's.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:10am


Roy's list is probably what SPace Trucker was looking for in the first place when he asked about a definitive way to measure artists.

I've often wondered how certain artists can get away w/ being on cruise-control while others get hammered for it. Personally I feel Weezer is doing that right now, at least amongst modern artists.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:19am


Cheesecrop...makes me think of the picture of the fence that says "Clapton Is God" painted on it...and in the corner a dog is relieving himslf on it. That about covers Clapton's solo career to me...

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:27am


Cheesecrop...makes me think of the picture of the fence that says "Clapton Is God" painted on it...and in the corner a dog is relieving himslf on it. That about covers Clapton's solo career to me...

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:27am


I must agree it was a bit egoish.. But no worse than Elvis through RCA or Dick Dale through Capital calling themselves "KING"
Eric has a great solo career just as a studio player alone.. Not counting his own LP'S..
YES TO ERIC..

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:35am


Dameon, did your female CBGB singer who's in the hall maybe have Gilda Radner do very funny skits about her on SNL?

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 08:13am


Another band that I don't see listed who was probably one of the tightest bands I've ever heard and had a very interesting history was Oingo Boingo. Although I don't think they'd ever get considered for the HOF, Danny Elfman will probably win an Oscar sometime in the near future.

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 08.20.08 @ 18:16pm


There are not enough bluesmen in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The omission of two of the three Kings of the blues who set the foundation for so much of how rock and roll has been played is particularly disgraceful.

At least BB King was inducted but he is not the only one who deserves enrollment. For example, Albert King influenced so many guitarists both in blues as well as rock and roll that to not induct him is a shame. Probably no bluesman influenced rock guitarists more than Albert King did. (Ask Jimi and Stevie Ray Vaughan about this man: Jimi was afraid to share a stage with him and SRV adored him as his idol.)

Freddie King is another whose absence is a shame-just as Eric Clapton whose electric guitar chops he was most inspired by...or Peter Green (Acoustically Clapton's main man was was Robert Johnson who also belongs in the Hall.) And of course Albert Collins is another whose influence spans a diversity of musical genres including rock and roll. Ask Jimi if you could what he thought about Collins' playing. Or Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top about leaving Collins or any of the three Kings out of the Hall.

All of these artists put their first recordings out in the 1950's except Albert Collins whose debut was in 1961. Virtually no one in the 2008 class even belongs in the same sentence as these three masters. And these are not the only omissions from the Hall which could be mentioned but they are significant ones especially since the 2008 induction list of potentials is (with few exceptions) of significantly poorer quality.

Posted by Shawn McElhinney on Monday, 08.25.08 @ 18:05pm


Scratch the Robert Johnson comment -I forgot he was inducted in the 1980's. But the rest of it stands.

Posted by Shawn McElhinney on Monday, 08.25.08 @ 18:11pm


Who Is Not In The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame?

The Diamonds, The Clovers, The Five Satins, The Penguins, The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Zombies, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Spinners, The Box Tops, The Shangri-Las, The Chantels, The Chiffons, The Marvelettes, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, The Contours, The Whispers, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, The Buckinghams, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Iron Butterfly, Foghat, Blue Cheer, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Procol Harum, Poco, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Little Feat, Fairport Convention, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Carpenters, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, Free, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, RUN DMC, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs, Metallica, Guns 'N' Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, England Dan and John Ford Coley, Hall & Oates, Rufus and Chaka Khan, Tears For Fears, Wham!

Ella Fitzgerald, Big Mama Thornton, Barbra Streisand, Leslie Gore, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Mary Wells, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Helen Reddy, Melissa Manchester, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Stevie Nicks, Kate Bush, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Pat Boone, Johnny Mathis, John Coltrane, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Tiny Tim, Ben E. King, Lee Dorsey, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Barry Manilow, Kris Kristofferson, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Harry Nillson, Jimmy Cliff, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Boz Scaggs, Peter Frampton, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Warren Zevon, Tom Waits, Jimmy Buffet, Eddie Money, George Benson, Al Jarreau, James Ingram, Peabo Bryson, Luther Vandross, Herbie Hancock, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, George Michael, Meatloaf, "Weird Al" Yankovic

John Simon, Tom Dowd, Arif Mardin, Quincy Jones, Wolfman Jack, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

INDUCT ALL!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 10:13am


Who Is Not In The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame?

The Diamonds, The Clovers, The Five Satins, The Penguins, The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Zombies, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Spinners, The Box Tops, The Shangri-Las, The Chantels, The Chiffons, The Marvelettes, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, The Contours, The Whispers, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, The Buckinghams, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Iron Butterfly, Foghat, Blue Cheer, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Procol Harum, Poco, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Little Feat, Fairport Convention, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Carpenters, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, Free, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, RUN DMC, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs, Metallica, Guns 'N' Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, England Dan and John Ford Coley, Hall & Oates, Rufus and Chaka Khan, Tears For Fears, Wham!

Ella Fitzgerald, Big Mama Thornton, Barbra Streisand, Leslie Gore, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Mary Wells, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Helen Reddy, Melissa Manchester, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Stevie Nicks, Kate Bush, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Pat Boone, Johnny Mathis, John Coltrane, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Tiny Tim, Ben E. King, Lee Dorsey, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Barry Manilow, Kris Kristofferson, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Harry Nillson, Jimmy Cliff, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Boz Scaggs, Peter Frampton, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Warren Zevon, Tom Waits, Jimmy Buffet, Eddie Money, George Benson, Al Jarreau, James Ingram, Peabo Bryson, Luther Vandross, Herbie Hancock, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, George Michael, Meatloaf, "Weird Al" Yankovic

John Simon, Tom Dowd, Arif Mardin, Quincy Jones, Wolfman Jack, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

INDUCT ALL!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 10:13am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree
!!!!!!

Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 10:19am


HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Then it is not a Hall of Fame. If you induct everyone, then it is nothing more than an encyclopedia with walls.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 11:41am


Looks like the only people left outside in the cold snowy winter this January in Cleveland are going to be The Association, Rare Earth and Harry Chapin.

Posted by Arrow Man on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 14:22pm


Don't got there, Arrow, he'll only amend his list to include them as well as the Bobbettes, Poni-Tails, Jarmels and Randy And The Rainbows.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 14:38pm


Everyone from the 50s and 60s has to be inducted!!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 15:03pm


BREAKING NEWS!!

The Hall Of Fame just announced that everyone on Roy's list plus The Association, Rare Earth, Harry Chapin, The Bobbettes, Poni-Tails, Jarmels and Randy And The Rainbows will all be inducted! The induction ceremony will turned into a 4 day festival. 20 square blocks of downtown NYC will be cordoned off so people can park their RVs and hang laundry.



Posted by joker on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 15:21pm


Let's not.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 16:33pm


Aww, why not? A 4 day induction marathon sounds awesome! 40th anniversary of Woodstock, too, no less! Only it'll be in Cleveland, instead of New York state... in a strange turn of events. lol

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 16:49pm


so, then what officially is the criteria? I got tired of looking through all Liam's super ego'd posts.

Posted by antiguy on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 19:48pm


Elton John was inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame in 1994, but his first album was released in the U.S. in 1970. That's not 25 years. I guess they counted his first album from 1969 which was originally released only in the U.K., but that's still not 25 years after. He should have been inducted in 1995 or 1996, not 1994. This does not make any sense.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 09.27.08 @ 12:17pm


Roy...Elton John's album "Empty Sky" was released in June, 1969, so his 1994 induction would be within the criteria.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 09.27.08 @ 12:42pm


1969-1994 = 25 Years. This means he should have been inducted in 1995.

He became eligable in 1994 for the 1995 induction ceremony!

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 09.27.08 @ 12:51pm


Roy...I don't think they look at it that way. If you look at recent inductees that were voted in on the first ballot, you'll see that it's 25 years from their first release to their actual induction. I see how you're looking at it though.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 09.27.08 @ 13:23pm


Re

"Example 1 - A kid at 13 hears and sees some band, any band. And it is because of this that the kid picks up the guitar. 20 years later, this kid has grown up to be a well respected musician. In listening to this person's music, you cannot detect the influence of any one band but in an interview, he/she states that it is because of a certain band that made him pick up that instrument. Can we say then that this band was an influence even though we cannot hear it?"

The way I see it, the band because of whom that kid has picked up an instrument cannot be called an influence. It is far from utterly improbable that (s)he is actually copying from a band or artist (s)he never heard.

Posted by Julien Peter Benney on Saturday, 09.27.08 @ 23:16pm


If you weighed the 'shit' against the 'good', as suggested in the first post, then Elvis wouldn't have gotten in 'till a couple years ago.

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 10.1.08 @ 15:07pm


You need to lay off the crack Mike cuz you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by Husker on Monday, 10.13.08 @ 12:54pm


FIGHT

Posted by Sir Crapsalot on Monday, 10.13.08 @ 12:55pm


reading most of the early comments here, I wish to declare Philip the best commenter. if this seems bold on my part, well so be it. because to me it seems less pompous than the dismissive statement "00' mainstream = crap." and following up that argument was all the stuff about influence and innovation. (sorry, I'm backing up several months in this discussion, but this is where I finally come in.)

I love Philip's statement:
"review, Tom Hanks' speech for the Dave Clark Five. He echoed everything my heart screamed as to why the DC5 belong in the Hall of Fame. And a lot of what's missing from music today."
(Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:46pm)

if you listened to that speech (and the DC5 music also) - it was all about how the music made the young Hanks feel, and the many associations the music left in his mind years later. all the other arguments about "influence" and "innovation" etc, (not discounting them completely Liam, but ...) but, you can't declare "impact" (or, popularity?) is a non-indicator. some of the die-hards seem to think popular = commercial. well, which one of yor vaunted indie groups wouldnt love to have one of their songs go gold? would you hold it against them? c'mon, yall need to self-examine. yor arguments smack of reverse snobbery.

yes, I presumptuously declare Philip to be the most rational and persuasive commenter in this whole section. hes the commenter who most completely understands what makes for good rock & roll. its about how it makes people feel.

Posted by benny on Wednesday, 10.22.08 @ 12:04pm


yes, I presumptuously declare Philip to be the most rational and persuasive commenter in this whole section.

Posted by benny on Wednesday, 10.22.08 @ 12:04pm
--------------------------------------------------
So Philip is the most rational commenter out there? Well, let me tell you something, I don't need to hear it from you whose the most rational. All you need to know is that every day the voices in my head tell me I'm the most rational, SO THERE!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 10.22.08 @ 16:38pm


Anyone who read all these posts going that far back can't possibly be in any condition to declare what's rational at this point.

Posted by joker on Wednesday, 10.22.08 @ 23:52pm


The only artists who have not been inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame and have an explanation or comment on their Future Rock Hall pages from The Future Rock Hall:

Quincy Jones, Ringo Starr, The Monkees, KISS

Quincy Jones:

Arguably the Rock Hall's biggest "Non-Performer" snub. Amazing he hasn't been enshrined yet.

Ringo Starr:

Ringo is the only Beatle who hasn't been inducted into the Rock Hall as a solo artist. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame loves the Beatles like no other, so there's always a chance they could use Ringo's induction as a way to get another Beatles exhibit into the Museum. Seems unlikely, but you never know.

The Monkees:

While the Monkees have legions of fans to this day, it seems unlikely that they will ever be inducted into the Rock Hall since they have been eligible since 1991. Critics never afforded the Monkees much respect since they were basically put together for a tv show. I wonder what this could mean for all of the American Idol winners?

KISS:

Most fans are able to recognize the impact that KISS has made on rock and roll, so it's puzzling that they have yet to even be nominated for the Rock Hall. A big reason they're on the outside could be music critic and Rock Hall nominating committee member, Dave Marsh, who once said:

Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot.

With that kind of prejudice, it's no wonder that Paul Stanley has become bitter about the Rock Hall in general:

The beauty of America is that you can basically start any kind of private club you want to. This one happens to be called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's a very impressive name for a club but it's an illusion. It's the creation of a group of industry people and critics who decide who they deem as qualified to be in their little admiration society. It's their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but it's not the people's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Have you ever voted? I know I haven't. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, besides having people who very much belong in there, have an abundance of people who most people will scratch their head and not even have a clue who they are. I don't have anything against anybody who's been inducted, but more than a couple of them are a joke. A band or musician's impact is measured by how they change and influence society and other musicians. That and how many albums and concert tickets they sell should be what gets them into the Hall of Fame. As far as I'm concerned it's a private club with a misleading name. It's a sham.

KISS are one of those bands that have gone through their entire career without much critical acclaim or industry awards, but have legions of fans who couldn't care less.

Fans can rest assured that the KISS legacy will live on whether they are recognized by the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame or not. (7.19.06)

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 09:09am


What's this? Roy, without a comment about Chicago!

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 11:44am


Roy said:

"The only artists who have not been inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame and have an explanation or comment on their Future Rock Hall pages from The Future Rock Hall:

Quincy Jones, Ringo Starr, The Monkees, KISS"



That is incorrect. There is also commentary on the Janet Jackson and Ozzy Osbourne pages:


www.futurerocklegends.com/artist.php?artist_id=Janet_Jackson

www.futurerocklegends.com/artist.php?artist_id=Ozzy_Osbourne

Posted by classicrocker on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 13:14pm



Artists who have not been inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame and have an explanation or comment on their Future Rock Hall pages from The Future Rock Hall:

Quincy Jones
Ringo Starr
The Monkees
Ozzy Osbourne
Janet Jackson
KISS

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 13:22pm


The next 7 years will determine whether or not The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame is still a credible institution:

7 Years; 5 Inductees Per Year; 35 Inductees

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 11.30.08 @ 13:18pm


I will mourn the loss of Munetaka Higuichi one of the greatest and most respected drummers in the world! I will celebrate his accomplishments, his music and his life. Loudness broke barriers with their music all over the world before they came to America and conquered it. Since 1981 Loudness have been creating music that inspired bands all over the world. Why this band of talented and respected musicians have not been inducted in to the hall of fame for Rock n Roll is beyond belief.

Posted by Tony on Friday, 12.5.08 @ 22:37pm


Re: Loudness

Tony, they don't even have a listing on this site. They are not that well known in the U.S., but you should send a note to FRH and get them listed.

Posted by bubble on Saturday, 12.6.08 @ 07:48am


Well Bubble the last time I checked this was not the U.S. hall of fame, and they are well known around the world with fans and musicians alike.
1984 Kerrang mag. fans voted Akira Takasaki best guitarist in the world and that is over eddie "the crybaby" van halen. I know you know what happened when van halen got voted into the hall and were asked to perform with other bands, and what has he done lately piss and moan. loudness continues to put out fresh music and keep going strong. just because Loudness does not release in the U.S. anymore does not void them from being inducted into the hall of fame. I will send an letter to frh to get them listed.

Posted by Tony on Monday, 12.8.08 @ 10:11am


Tony, you should go easy on Bubble. Looks like Bubble was only trying to be helpful. It's not the U.S. Rock Hall, true that. But, Loudness is not that well known outside Japan. Despite what you say (and your 84 Kerrang mag?), Loudness never "conquered" the U.S., they only had some moderate success there. The group does merit consideration.

Posted by Telarock on Monday, 12.8.08 @ 10:54am


Joe Osborn should be included in the Rock Hall under the side-man category. Joe Osborn was a session bassist who played on 197 Top 40 hits, including 16 number one hits. To most bassists from that era, Joe Osborn was as influential as James Jamerson for his melodic playing style. He was the bassist who did that funky obligato at the end of "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In". He also did one of the most melodic bass lines ever played on Simon & Garfunkel's "The Only Living Boy in New York". Interesting, the drummer that he played with on many of those songs, Hal Blaine, was inducted a couple of years ago. For some reason, Joe was not. This needs to be addressed and Joe should be given this distinction that he so deserves.

Posted by Mike Stevens on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 15:31pm


That's right!! please ADD Loudness!!!Greatest Japanese band together with X-JAPAN!

Posted by AkiraTakasaki on Sunday, 12.21.08 @ 13:40pm


To AkiraTakasaki: Your band toured with Stryper back in the mid-80s. I liked them, they had a lot of talent. They used to throw Bibles at people in the audience. That was really cool. I have never heard Loudness perform, but I think it would be nice if they added you.

Posted by Cokey on Sunday, 12.21.08 @ 14:50pm


Takasaki San, yor band "Loudness" has now gotten a listing I see. Comment away tomodachi. (per babelfish tomodachi is Japanese for friend)

Posted by Telarock on Sunday, 12.28.08 @ 15:39pm


Only 20th Century artists should be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 09:50am


Here's what Roy said:
"Who Is Not In The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame?

The Diamonds, The Clovers, The Five Satins, The Penguins, The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Zombies, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Spinners, The Box Tops, The Shangri-Las, The Chantels, The Chiffons, The Marvelettes, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, The Contours, The Whispers, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, The Buckinghams, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Iron Butterfly, Foghat, Blue Cheer, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Procol Harum, Poco, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Little Feat, Fairport Convention, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Carpenters, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, Free, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, RUN DMC, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs, Metallica, Guns 'N' Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, England Dan and John Ford Coley, Hall & Oates, Rufus and Chaka Khan, Tears For Fears, Wham!

Ella Fitzgerald, Big Mama Thornton, Barbra Streisand, Leslie Gore, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Mary Wells, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Helen Reddy, Melissa Manchester, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Stevie Nicks, Kate Bush, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Pat Boone, Johnny Mathis, John Coltrane, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Tiny Tim, Ben E. King, Lee Dorsey, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Barry Manilow, Kris Kristofferson, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Harry Nillson, Jimmy Cliff, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Boz Scaggs, Peter Frampton, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Warren Zevon, Tom Waits, Jimmy Buffet, Eddie Money, George Benson, Al Jarreau, James Ingram, Peabo Bryson, Luther Vandross, Herbie Hancock, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, George Michael, Meatloaf, "Weird Al" Yankovic

John Simon, Tom Dowd, Arif Mardin, Quincy Jones, Wolfman Jack, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

INDUCT ALL!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 10:13am"

Hey Roy, you forgot about everybody else!!!

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 11:28am


Only 20th Century Artists Should Be Inducted Into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 11:37am


Shut up Roy. What kind of lame criteria is that? Judging by all your posts, I thought you didn't have any other criteria than "should have made music".

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 11:41am


I'm sure you left out somebody though. I don't See any Wishbone Ash, or The Move or Mountain on your list.

I also think this comment is worth repeating:

"Anyone who read all these posts going that far back can't possibly be in any condition to declare what's rational at this point.

Posted by joker on Wednesday, 10.22.08 @ 23:52pm"

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 11:44am


I should be careful, I could give someone ideas...

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 11:45am


I think Roy and Lax are twins separated at birth. What truly amazes me is that they don't seem to care how much hell they catch from the rest of us. Perhaps they are the sane ones and it is us who have lost our brains!

Roy - you missed the Archies and Partridge Family.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 12:05pm


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame
http://www.rockhall.com

249 inductees in 24 years.

AVERAGE # OF INDUCTEES PER YEAR - 10

1986 - 16 inductees
1987 - 23 inductees - BEST YEAR EVER!
1988 - 09 inductees
1989 - 09 inductees

1990 - 16 inductees
1991 - 11 inductees
1992 - 12 inductees
1993 - 11 inductees
1994 - 10 inductees
1995 - 09 inductees
1996 - 09 inductees
1997 - 10 inductees
1998 - 08 inductees
1999 - 10 inductees

2000 - 14 inductees
2001 - 11 inductees
2002 - 08 inductees
2003 - 09 inductees
2004 - 08 inductees
2005 - 07 inductees
2006 - 07 inductees
2007 - 05 inductees - WORST YEAR EVER!
2008 - 08 inductees
2009 - 09 inductees

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 17:53pm


It amazes me that Genesis has not been inducted into the RnR Hall of Fame. Their first album was released in 1969 (they were eligible a long time ago). The band were considered innovative pioneers of Progressive rock in the 70s along with acts like King Crimson, ELP, and Yes (none of which have been inducted to date). In the 80s the band reinvented itself and went on to become one of the best selling bands of all time. Genesis and its former members as solo artists have collectively sold approximately 400 million copies of their works. While sales, massive sell out football arena tours (as recent as 2007), and hit singles may not be an indicator the Hall of Fame considered an indicator. I think their impact on prog rock and pop music says it all.

Posted by Dave on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 18:13pm


I think they should induct 8 and nominat 13.

Posted by Leon on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 22:38pm


http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_halloffame_non.html

The Digital Dream Door's list of candidates for the Non-Performers category:

Jeff Barry & Ellie Greenwich
Thom Bell & Linda Creed
Bert Berns & Jerry Ragavoy
Boudleaux & Felice Bryant
Vivian Carter, James Bracken and Calvin Carter
Barrett Strong & Norman Whitfield
Cynthia Weil & Barry Mann

Lou Adler, Cholly Atkins, Arthur Baker, Richard Barrett, Steve Binder, Otis Blackwell, Deborah Chessler, Lew Chudd, Don Cornelius, Bob Crewe, Maxwell Davis, Luther Dixon, DJ Kool Herc, Tom Dowd, Fab Five Freddy, Charlie Gillett, George Goldner, Lee Hazlewood, Jimmy Iovine, Glyn Johns, Evelyn Johnson, Marion Keisker, Alexis Korner, Arif Mardin, Cosimo Matassa, Terry Melcher, Willie Mitchell, Chips Moman, Richard Nader, Jack Nitzsche, Dan Penn, D.A. Pennebaker, Lee "Scratch" Perry, Norman Petty, "John R." (John Richbourg), Sylvia Robinson, Bunny Robyn, Art Rupe, Lester Sill, Russell Simmons, Jesse Stone, Paul Williams, Wolfman Jack.

MY LIST - NOT ON DIGITAL DREAM DOOR

John Simon, Phil Ramone, Quincy Jones, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

I ASKED THEM TO ADD AND THEY DIDN'T!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 01.16.09 @ 06:07am


Roy, I'd see if they'd add Bernie Lowe, Kal Mann, Dave Appell, Mort Schuman, Steve Barri, and P.F. Sloan to that list as well.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 01.16.09 @ 16:21pm


Just want to know why Iron maiden and Motley Crue hasn't been voted into hall of fame?

Posted by Thedon on Monday, 01.19.09 @ 20:00pm


Here is an opinion question for the masses. The Holland-Dozier song "You Keep Me Hanging On" is one of the most recorded songs in modern popular music history. Some of the artists who have recorded this song are The Supremes (original), Vanilla Fudge, Kim Wilde, Madness, Tim Buckley (Live Album), The Nice, and many others including Alvin and the Chipmunks. I believe it has charted in the top 10 at least 3x in the USA.

Which recording is favored?

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.20.09 @ 08:04am


Vanilla Fudge...but you probably already knew I'd say that...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 01.20.09 @ 09:05am


Alvin and the Chipmunks, off course.

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 01.20.09 @ 09:45am


Kidding. I choose The Supremes, with Vanilla Fudge on #2.

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 01.20.09 @ 09:48am


Quik answer to Thedon: Motley Crue been eligible since 2006. They did not get voted in yet because there are 50 artists/groups who are easily more deserving?

Posted by Worm on Tuesday, 01.20.09 @ 11:39am


Quite frankly, I'm beginning to feel like, and I'm certainly not alone in this, that The 600 R&RHOF voters are becoming more and more just another group of snobs who are out to snub a whole list of fantastic musicians who have more than EARNED their place in a Hall of Fame. You explain to me how Ricky Nelson or the 4 Tops, or the 4 Seasons, has made more of an impact on Rock and Roll than Jimmy Page, Kiss,Journey, Bad Company, or even Julian Lennon?? Hey, at least Julian Lennon wrote Saltwater-- this song inspired MORE than ONE generation of listeners to take the welfare of our planet seriously!What did Ricky Nelson inspire???? And how in the WORLD did Liza Minelli make the list of possible inductees ANYWAY???? somehow, Liza Minelli and Rock n Roll just makes my head hurt to say in the same sentence! What I think, is that the list of inductees for 2009 shows, as I fear the list of inductees for 2010 will show,(unless the entire 600 member nominating comittee is changed out!)that these people are only voting in who they LIKE, and will continue to SNUB anyone that they don't like, even if the music a group or person created inspired world peace! When I talk with people about the R&RHOF, every year it seems that more people are in agreement that it is just a group of 600 people who want musicians to know who they are hoping they'll be fawned over in hopes that they'll be "picked" for this "honor" in a small group of musicians which, after reading the list, I can see at least easily 1/3 of them should not be there, while others should most definitely be...I think it's a farce, and until the R&RHOF changes out their voting comittee on a regular basis, will remain so because they will never get a fresh view on musicians that have already made the list to be nominated, and actually be inducted in, no matter how deserving, because "the 600" simply do not like them..Ask the same people the same question year after year and you'll get the same answer...Yup! It's a FARCE and I think that just a couple of years down the road, musicians are going to be relieved that they haven't been inducted into this group of other musicians chosen by a small group of snobs who wouldn't know musical impact if it walked up and slapped them in the face!

Posted by Pamela on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 13:03pm


Posted by Pamela on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 13:03pm


What did Ricky Nelson inspire????


Plenty...!

Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 14:12pm


INDUCT ALL NOW!

The Diamonds, The Clovers, The Five Satins, The Penguins, The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Zombies, The Kingston Trio, Herman's Hermits, The Kingsmen, The Searchers, The Spinners, The Box Tops, The Shangri-Las, The Chantels, The Chiffons, The Marvelettes, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, The Contours, The Whispers, Tommy James and the Shondells, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, The Buckinghams, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, The Blues Project, Iron Butterfly, Foghat, Blue Cheer, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Procol Harum, Poco, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, America, Toto, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Little Feat, Fairport Convention, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Mott the Hoople, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Grandfunk Railroad, Love, Supertramp, Roxy Music, Manfred Mann, Mannheim Steamroller, The Carpenters, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Spinal Tap, KC and the Sunshine Band, Tony Orlando and Dawn, The Neville Brothers, ABBA, Air Supply, Bread, War, Free, 10cc, Ambrosia, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, Billy Idol, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, Beastie Boys, INXS, Bon Jovi, 10,000 Maniacs, Guns 'N' Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam

Peter, Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Seals and Crofts, England Dan and John Ford Coley, Hall & Oates, Rufus and Chaka Khan, Tears For Fears, Wham!

Ella Fitzgerald, Big Mama Thornton, Dee Dee Sharp, Barbra Streisand, Barbara Mandrell, Peggy Lee, Peggy Sue, Connie Francis, Leslie Gore, Patsy Cline, Petula Clark, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Mary Wells, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Anne Murray, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Buffy Sainte-Marie, Helen Reddy, Melissa Manchester, Rita Coolidge, Jennifer Warnes, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, Suzi Quatro, The Pointer Sisters, Olivia Newton-John, Stevie Nicks, Kate Bush, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Mel Torme, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Pat Boone, Johnny Mathis, John Coltrane, George Jones, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Tiny Tim, Ben E. King, Lee Dorsey, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Donovan, Fabian, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Barry Manilow, Kris Kristofferson, Kenny Rogers, Randy Newman, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Don McLean, Jim Croce, Cat Stevens, John Denver, Joe Cocker, Ringo Starr, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Todd Rundgren, Billy Preston, Aaron Neville, Harry Nillson, Jimmy Cliff, Leon Russell, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, Gordon Lightfoot, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Boz Scaggs, Peter Frampton, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ozzy Osbourne, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Warren Zevon, Tom Waits, Jimmy Buffet, Eddie Money, George Benson, Al Jarreau, James Ingram, Peabo Bryson, Luther Vandross, Herbie Hancock, Kenny Loggins, Robert Palmer, Bryan Adams, George Michael, Meatloaf, "Weird Al" Yankovic

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 16:33pm


Roy...your list lost some credibility when you mentioned Gary Lewis & the Playboys. These guys weren't even a good garage band, but daddy (Jerry Lewis) stepped in, got the best musicians he could find, put so much reverb on Gary's voice that you couldn't recognize him, and got them a recording contract. From what I understand, the background musicians on "This Diamond Ring" were the Wrecking Crew.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 17:26pm


Pamela - if you do not understand the importance of the 4 Tops, then there is no helping you.

And then you state Julian Lennon should be inducted. Wow - I am a scared!

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 20:05pm


Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 17:26pm

Roy...your list lost some credibility when you mentioned Gary Lewis & the Playboys. These guys weren't even a good garage band, but daddy (Jerry Lewis) stepped in, got the best musicians he could find, put so much reverb on Gary's voice that you couldn't recognize him, and got them a recording contract. From what I understand, the background musicians on "This Diamond Ring" were the Wrecking Crew.
--------------------------------------------------

They were ok Keltners first big gig..
Heck Hal did the Playboys and
1 hits

* "Can't Help Falling in Love" - Elvis Presley (12/18/61)
* "He's a Rebel" - The Crystals (10/06/62)
* "Surf City" - Jan & Dean (06/22/63)
* "I Get Around" - The Beach Boys (06/06/64)
* "Everybody Loves Somebody" - Dean Martin (07/11/64)
* "Ringo" - Lorne Greene (11/07/64)
* "This Diamond Ring" - Gary Lewis & the Playboys (01/23/65)
* "Help Me, Rhonda" - The Beach Boys (05/01/65)
* "Mr Tambourine Man" - The Byrds (06/05/65)
* "I Got You Babe" - Sonny & Cher (07/31/65)
* "Eve of Destruction" - Barry McGuire (08/28/65)
* "My Love" - Petula Clark (01/15/66)
* "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'" - Nancy Sinatra (02/05/66)
* "Monday Monday" - The Mamas & the Papas (04/16/66)
* "Strangers in the Night" - Frank Sinatra (07/02/66)
* "Poor Side of Town" - Johnny Rivers (10/08/66)
* "Good Vibrations" - The Beach Boys (10/29/66)
* "Somethin' Stupid" - Frank & Nancy Sinatra (03/25/67)
* "The Happening" - The Supremes (04/15/67)
* "Windy" - Association (06/03/67)
* "Mrs. Robinson" - Simon & Garfunkel (05/04/68)
* "Dizzy" - Tommy Roe (03/15/69)
* "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In" - 5th Dimension (04/12/69)
* "Love Theme - Romeo & Juliet" - Henry Mancini (05/24/69)
* "Wedding Bell Blues" - 5th Dimension (10/04/69)
* "Bridge Over Troubled Water" - Simon & Garfunkel (02/14/70)
* "(They Long to Be) Close to You" - The Carpenters (06/27/70)
* "Cracklin' Rosie" - Neil Diamond (08/29/70)
* "Indian Reservation" - Paul Revere & the Raiders (05/29/71)
* "I Think I Love You" - The Partridge Family (10/31/71)
* "Song Sung Blue" - Neil Diamond (05/13/72)
* "Half Breed" - Cher (09/01/73)
* "Annie's Song" - John Denver (06/15/74)
* "Top of the World" - The Carpenters (10/20/74)
* "The Way We Were" - Barbra Streisand (12/22/74)
* "Thank God I'm a Country Boy" - John Denver (04/05/75)
* "Love Will Keep Us Together" - Captain & Tennille (05/24/75)
* "I'm Sorry"/"Calypso" - John Denver (08/30/75)
* "Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To)" - Diana Ross (11/22/76)


Hal did the above name only a few What is your point....lol



Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 22:22pm


My point is...the Wrecking Crew could make ANYONE sound good...

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 07:09am


Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 07:09am


My point is...the Wrecking Crew could make ANYONE sound good...

--------------------------------------------------my point is almost everyone good used them!

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 15:17pm


mrxyz...it all applies, bro. An artist couldn't go wrong using the Wrecking Crew!!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 16:53pm


Pamela doesn't think the 4 Seasons influenced anyone? Try the Bee Gees and Billy Joel? Not to mention the knockoff soundalikes to follow in their wake (such as Tim Tam And The Turn-Ons).

Posted by Philip on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 17:34pm



Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 16:53pm
mrxyz...it all applies, bro. An artist couldn't go wrong using the Wrecking Crew!!!!!

---------------------------------------------

I can't think of any bad groups he was on.. Gary Lewis included... Can you..?


Hal Blaine may well be the most prolific drummer in rock and roll history. He's certainly played on more hit records than any drummer in the rock era, including 40 #1 singles and 150 that made the Top Ten. Eight of the records he played on won Grammys for Record of the Year. Blaine, who was born Harold Simon Belsky in 1929, became a professional drummer in 1948 and joined teen idol Tommy Sands' band in the late Fifties. He was the most in-demand session drummer in Los Angeles during the Sixties and early Seventies, and a list of musicians he played with reads like a who's who of popular music.

In 1961, Blaine drummed on "Can't Help Falling in Love With You," one of Elvis Presley's most memorable sides, and he would play on Presley's film soundtracks throughout the Sixties. However, Blaine's best-known affiliation is with producer Phil Spector, where he served as the percussive backbone of the "Wrecking Crew" the nickname that younger studio hands on the L.A. scene bestowed on themselves after the rock-hating old-timers complained they were "wrecking the business." He was a key component of Spector's "Wall of Sound" production, which yielded such classic rock and roll hits as "Be My Baby," by the Ronettes, and "Da Doo Ron Ron," by the Crystals.

Blaine also established a fruitful relationship with Beach Boys leader Brian Wilson, for whom he served as the first-call session drummer. Blaine appeared on innumerable Beach Boys hits, ranging from "Surfer Girl" to "Good Vibrations." He also drummed on countless recordings by the cream of West Coast pop musicians, including Jan and Dean, the Mamas and the Papas, the Byrds, Johnny Rivers, the Association, Sonny and Cher, the Grass Roots, and Gary Lewis and the Playboys. On the more "adult" side of the pop ledger, Blaine played drums on recordings by Frank Sinatra and Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. By Blaine's own estimate, he performed on 35,000 recorded tracks over in a quarter century's worth of work. He published his memoirs, Hal Blaine and the Wrecking Crew, in 1990. In March of 2000 Hal Blaine was inducted into the 'Rock and Roll' Hall of Fame....


Hal Blaine may well be the most prolific drummer in rock and roll history. He's certainly played on more hit records than any drummer in the rock era, including 40 #1 singles and 150 that made the Top Ten. Eight of the records he played on won Grammys for Record of the Year. Blaine, who was born Harold Simon Belsky in 1929, became a professional drummer in 1948 and joined teen idol Tommy Sands' band in the late Fifties. He was the most in-demand session drummer in Los Angeles during the Sixties and early Seventies, and a list of musicians he played with reads like a who's who of popular music.

In 1961, Blaine drummed on "Can't Help Falling in Love With You," one of Elvis Presley's most memorable sides, and he would play on Presley's film soundtracks throughout the Sixties. However, Blaine's best-known affiliation is with producer Phil Spector, where he served as the percussive backbone of the "Wrecking Crew" the nickname that younger studio hands on the L.A. scene bestowed on themselves after the rock-hating old-timers complained they were "wrecking the business." He was a key component of Spector's "Wall of Sound" production, which yielded such classic rock and roll hits as "Be My Baby," by the Ronettes, and "Da Doo Ron Ron," by the Crystals.

Blaine also established a fruitful relationship with Beach Boys leader Brian Wilson, for whom he served as the first-call session drummer. Blaine appeared on innumerable Beach Boys hits, ranging from "Surfer Girl" to "Good Vibrations." He also drummed on countless recordings by the cream of West Coast pop musicians, including Jan and Dean, the Mamas and the Papas, the Byrds, Johnny Rivers, the Association, Sonny and Cher, the Grass Roots, and Gary Lewis and the Playboys. On the more "adult" side of the pop ledger, Blaine played drums on recordings by Frank Sinatra and Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. By Blaine's own estimate, he performed on 35,000 recorded tracks over in a quarter century's worth of work. He published his memoirs, Hal Blaine and the Wrecking Crew, in 1990. In March of 2000 Hal Blaine was inducted into the 'Rock and Roll' Hall of Fame.

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 19:11pm


Yeah, it's a good thing they actually went ahead and inducted Hal Blaine then. But not every group or artist he drummed for is as deserving as him.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 22:54pm




Yeah, it's a good thing they actually went ahead and inducted Hal Blaine then. But not every group or artist he drummed for is as deserving as him.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 01.23.09 @ 22:54pm

LOL.....Ok..? I am sure over the 60 years he must of had a few but I don't know who...

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 01.24.09 @ 08:54am


I'm sure he had a couple of songs that he walked away from thinking "why did I agree to do that song...I have a reputation to protect"...LOL!!!! I guess everyone has had those times, but it was probably just because it wasn't a good song...not because of his drumming...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 01.24.09 @ 09:02am


here a few more hits.. I just don't know who did not deserve Hal and his Pals the Wrecking Crew ..ension
Let the Sunshine in/Aquarius
Stoned Soul Picnic
Up-Up and Away
One Less Bell to Answer

Association
Windy
Never My Love

Beach Boys
California Girls
Don't Worry Baby
Fun Fun Fun
God Only Knows
Good Vibrations
I Get Around
Sloop John B

Byrds
Mr. Tamborine Man
Turn! Turn! Turn!

Glen Campbell
By The Time I Get to Phoenix
Gentle on My Mind
Wichita Lineman

Captain and Tennille
Love Will Keep Us Together

Carpenters
Close to You
We've Only Just Begun

Cher
Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves
Half-Breed

Chipmunks
Chipmunks Theme

Nat King Cole
Ramblin' Rose

Sam Cooke
Twistin' the Night Away
You Send Me

Crystals
Then He Kissed Me
Da Doo Ron Ron
He's A Rebel

Bobby Day
Rock-in Robin

Defenders
Taco Wagon

Shelly Fabares
Johnny Angel

Richard Harris
MacArthur Park

Jan & Dean
Dead Man's Curve
Surf City
Little Old Lady (From Pasadena)
Balboa Blue

Gary Lewis and the Playboys
Everybody Loves a Clown
Sure Gonna Miss Her
This Diamond Ring

Barry McGuire
Eve of Destruction

Mamas & Papas
California Dreamin'
Creeque Alley
Dedicated to the One I Love
Monday, Monday

Henry Mancini
The Pink Panther Theme

Marketts
Out of Limits
Surfer's Stomp

Dean Martin
Everybody Loves Somebody

Scott McKenzie
San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)

Monkees
Mary Mary
Valleri

Chris Montez
Let's Dance

Ricky Nelson
Fools Rush In

Wayne Newton
Danke Schoen

Jack Nitzsche
The Lonely Surfer

Harry Nilsson
Everybody's Talkin'

Partridge Family
Come on Get Happy

Elvis Presley
A Little Less Conversation
Viva Las Vegas

Paul Revere & the Raiders
Indian Reservation

Righteous Brothers
Unchained Melody
You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'

Rip Chords
Hey Little Cobra

Johnny Rivers
Poor Side of Town

Tommy Roe
Dizzy

Ronnetts
Be My Baby
I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus

Routers
Let's Go

The Sandpipers
Guantanamera

Lalo Schifrin
Mission Impossible

Simon and Garfunkel
Mrs. Robinson

Frank Sinatra
Strangers in the Night
That's Life

Nancy Sinatra
These Boots Were Made for Walkin'
Drummer Man

Sonny and Cher
The Beat Goes On
I Got You Babe

T-Bones
No Matter What Shape (Your Stomach's In)

Nino Tempo & April Stevens
Deep Purple

Tijuana Brass
The Lonely Bull
Spanish Flea
Taste of Honey
Whipped Cream
Zorba the Greek

Ike and Tina Turner
River Deep Mountain High

Ritchie Valens
Donna

Bobby Vee
The Night Has a Thousand Eyes

Ventures
Hawaii 5-O

Mason Williams
Classical Gas

Roger Williams
Born Free


©2008 Denny Tedesco. All Rights Reserved.
E-mail List Signup:

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 01.24.09 @ 09:10am


mrxyz, you actually think every artist that recorded a song that Hal drummed on deserves induction? Seriously?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 01.24.09 @ 22:15pm


Posted by Philip on Saturday, 01.24.09 @ 22:15pm

mrxyz, you actually think every artist that recorded a song that Hal drummed on deserves induction? Seriously? Hmmmm good question...

I counted 28 inductees ..he has a part in with their hits ..already
Might be a good way in picking most of them out...Seems he knew who were stars and helped them get there OR STAY...I don't think he had much time to work with any one but the best..!
Seems the best had time for him.. You know "birds of feathers" ...
It is who he drummed/with/ for ...that he doesn't talk about in public I find.... interesting...
So yeah good idea...!


Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 01:31am


Sorry, but I gotta disagree. It's whoever paid him that got him. Has nothing to do with the quality of the artist he was with. He was a hired gun. If the producer put up the money, he'd play. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's how you make your living, but you're assuming that Hal picked and chose what he played on by his personal opinion of the group in question.

For another case, take the late Don LaFontaine... when he did a trailer for a movie, it was NEVER based on his opinion of the movie. He could have thought the movie was an absolute suckfest, and he'd still give it his full effort when doing the trailer. He was a professional, plain and simple.

Your statement of "he only had time to work with the best" is fallacious. Plain and simple. One, again, it's whoever paid him got him, and most often then, it wasn't the musicians, it was the producers. Don't get me wrong, if Elvis or Sinatra wanted me, yeah I'd make time for them, too! But Shelly Fabares or the Defenders who were unknowns before their hits, no, it's not about prestige or honor. Secondly, your list barely scratches the surface of the songs that Hal Blaine played on. On one episode of Rock Roll And Remember, Dick Clark played only songs that Hal Blaine had drummed on. That was a four hour show, and even then, didn't cover half the gamut of stuff that Hal did. If you want to induct every artist that Hal played for, your list would be longer than the one Roy keeps annoying us with. Hal had time for just about anyone, not just the best.

As for Gary Lewis And The Playboys, forget it. I like a lot of their songs... but if you get into their album filler cover versions of songs, you'll see VERY clearly why they don't belong. Lewis's take on "I Think We're Alone Now" is absolutely horrendous and laughable.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 01:59am


THE NEXT SIX YEARS OF THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME, BEFORE THE CLASS OF 1990 BECOMES ELIGIBLE:

2010

Gram Parsons
The Stooges
Chic
Donna Summer
The Beastie Boys

2011

Bon Jovi
The Red Hot Chilli Pepperrs
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Neil Diamond
Cat Stevens

2012

War
Ringo Starr
Jim Croce
Def Leppard
The Chiffons

2013

Joan Baez
Judy Collins
The Hollies
Herman's Hermits
Jan and Dean

2014

Alice Cooper
KISS
Rush
The Cars
Dire Straits

2015

Genesis
Chicago
Kool & The Gang
The Commodores
Hall & Oates

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 04:56am


Not enough time, Roy, not enough. You're asking for things to happen before class of 90 hits, but by 2012 Soundgarden, Jane's Addiction, and the Pixies are already eligible. They've got a year or two at most before several years of definitive acts start showing up, i.e. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Pumpkins, etc.

Time constraints won't let them do it, but a more expansive roster of inductees will. The inductees follow for the most part the timeline of RS & the industry. The 50's & 60's overload starts to slow down around 2000, as the voters recognize they are approaching the period they dreaded all along. The shrinking down to 5 spots reflects the inevitable move into the 80's, and the motivation for creating this in the 1st place.

Perhaps a change in the voting board might lead to extra nominees, perhaps up to 6 or 7 in a year. Even then, the Rush's & Purple's would have to content w/the GNR's & Nirvana's. A younger board may not take to the older acts as fast, and may only let 1 a yr. go in. Theacts you list might not see induction until 2015-2020.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 08:54am


Roy -

Don't get me wrong in regards to who you listed. I tend to agree w/you on at least half your picks. I just see a universe where a post-2010 voting group is going to have to clean up the mess. The only way to do it would be expanding nominees. I've already said previously that those who say Band A should get in before Band B based on age are ridiculous, & if the Hall statrs thinking the way I do, it will leave a lot of people stranded in time.

The favorites everyone mentions here are either getting in in 2010-2011, or after 2020. Perhaps a trickle effect may occur through the years 2012-2019, but it would be very, very SLOW, w/the entrants few & far between.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 09:03am


Cheesecrop...with the timeline suggested here, by then the "HOF"(note that I'm not giving it much credit for being a bonafide hall of fame) will be so saturated with non-deserving inductees it won't really matter who they let in. Meanwhile, there will still be the real deserving artists on the outside looking in. It's a borderline "sham" now...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 09:15am


If I'm correct, next year will be the 25th time artists will be inducted in the Hall. I hope they will do something special. At least they should nominate more than nine artists, and induct more than five. A bigger ballot creates opportunities for artists from a wider range of genres, styles and periods, and speed up the induction of a couple of deserving ones. Deep Purple, this could be your year.

Posted by The_Claw on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 09:36am


...if we can just get them to induct "deserving" artists. Who knows what those clowns are thinking...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 10:07am


Roy...bashing Elvis won't make people like Chicago any more or get them inducted any faster. He's one of the "absolute no-brainer inductees", which, regardless how you feel about him, most people would probably agree.

Let me ask you this...how many guys played rock stand-up bass before Bill Black?

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 10:13am


s for Gary Lewis And The Playboys, forget it. I like a lot of their songs... but if you get into their album filler cover versions of songs, you'll see VERY clearly why they don't belong. Lewis's take on "I Think We're Alone Now" is absolutely horrendous and laughable.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 01:59am

Lot of fillers don't know if Hal was the drummer on that tune Jim Keltner did a lot also..I really didnot listen to much Playboy stuff ..
As far as Hal working for just anyone He was so busy 2-3 sessions a day or on a full time project unless he took a break and toured.. I DOUBT MANY BAD ARTIST COULD AFFORD HIM OR GET A BOOKING..In his Hay days.
I don't know you would have to ask Hal or his drum guy/tech/roadie Rick..




Posted by mrxyzx on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:13pm


Once again, let me simply state that often IT WASN'T A QUESTION OF IF AN ARTIST COULD AFFORD HIM, IT WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE SESSION'S PRODUCER COULD AFFORD/BOOK HIM. World of difference right there. Also, as the case of Madonna clearly proves, being able to afford a top-notch musician doesn't prove you're a good artist. Third, 2-3 sessions a day... considering a band released only a handful of singles a year, and an album, MAYBE two... this still gives Hal Blaine a lot of opportunity to play with a LOT of different artists.

Also, many good artists never used Hal Blaine: the Turtles spring to mind immediately.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:24pm


... this still gives Hal Blaine a lot of opportunity to play with a LOT of different artists.
Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:24pm

I am sure that there were some bad session even with top artist.... I am also sure he was very very busy with the top artist or soon to be....

I was not his booker but... was hangin out and around..so to speak...Like I said before. It is who he work for that you don't hear about that is really interesting...Not that the others are not...
I know ,not just anybody could book Hal.. 99% of the time.. He was that busy..$$!!! As you can tell from 25 plus years of a top 10 hits or better at any and all given moment..


Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:34pm


Maybe, but the fact that he played with so many different artists of different styles tells me he wasn't particularly picky about for whom he played. Whom he didn't mention may just simply be because after so many sessions, they kind of run together. I don't really remember every day of work I've had. Some are just run of the mill. Artists like the Mamas And The Papas were memorable for him because they actually did drugs during the recording sessions. Presley and Sinatra were memorable because they're the big men in town. I don't think he's going to remember EVERY session he's had, and be able to rattle off EVERY artist he played for.

That is, of course, my opinion.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:38pm


I'm surprised Nicky Hopkins hasn't been inducted yet in the sideman category. What Hal Blaine was to the U.S. and the drums, Hopkins was to the U.K. and the piano. Anyone know any reason why this is? Did he tick someone off? (Since they inducted Isaac Hayes, it can't be anti-Scientology prejudice.)

I'm glad Black and Fontana were inducted this year.

In general the treatment of sidemen and backing bands seems inconsistent. Why was Buddy Holly inducted without the Crickets, but Elvis Costello was inducted with the Attractions? Some of Holly's best-known work was issued under the Crickets name, not as a solo artist. Smokey Robinson without the Miracles was the most egregious of all.

Posted by James K. on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:46pm


aybe, but the fact that he played with so many different artists of different styles tells me he wasn't particularly picky about for whom he played. Whom he didn't mention may just simply be because after so many sessions, they kind of run together. I don't really remember every day of work I've had. Some are just run of the mill. Artists like the Mamas And The Papas were memorable for him because they actually did drugs during the recording sessions. Presley and Sinatra were memorable because they're the big men in town. I don't think he's going to remember EVERY session he's had, and be able to rattle off EVERY artist he played for.

That is, of course, my opinion.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:38pm


I would agree he would not remember everyone.. Having said that not everyone could book him.. He was real busy...

He was a bit picky,, he had to be.. his name was on IT... On many of the HIT stuff he was offered production points.. Looking back I am sure he wished he had...lol
"ALL YOU NEED IS EARS"

Posted by mrxzy on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:47pm


'm surprised Nicky Hopkins hasn't been inducted yet in the sideman category. What Hal Blaine was to the U.S. and the drums, Hopkins was to the U.K. and the piano. Anyone know any reason why this is? Did he tick someone off? (Since they inducted Isaac Hayes, it can't be anti-Scientology prejudice.)

I'm glad Black and Fontana were inducted this year.

In general the treatment of sidemen and backing bands seems inconsistent. Why was Buddy Holly inducted without the Crickets, but Elvis Costello was inducted with the Attractions? Some of Holly's best-known work was issued under the Crickets name, not as a solo artist. Smokey Robinson without the Miracles was the most egregious of all.

Posted by James K. on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:46pm


I agree 101`% and Nicky was a great guy as a person an musician

.RIP NICKY

Posted by mryz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 12:49pm


He had to be picky chiefly because of his time constraints, but considering he wasn't given label credit on anything, really, I don't see having his name on it as an argument. Besides which, a record could still suck despite having his great drumming on it.

Nicky Hopkins... would that it were. He won't get in unless you can prove that what he did had a significant impact on the American music scene. The HoF is still pretty myopic that way.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 13:35pm


e had to be picky chiefly because of his time constraints, but considering he wasn't given label credit on anything, really, I don't see having his name on it as an argument. Besides which, a record could still suck despite having his great drumming on it.

Nicky Hopkins... would that it were. He won't get in unless you can prove that what he did had a significant impact on the American music scene. The HoF is still pretty myopic that way.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 13:35pm


As far as Hal he is a great guy a true team player.
One of the best producers out there with or with out credit..
It was the industry not the Audience His name was of importants... He was a Hit maker .The artist artist, musicians musician, producers producer and a true nice guy.. If you wanted to have a HIT best call Hal and you might have a good chance...If it was good enough to be a hit...
Nicky like Hal and other great studio musicians help make the band be GREAT ..From the Stones to the Who.. endless names...Nicky was your friend, musician and idea man..
RIP NICKY and Happy Birtday Hal 80 next month and finally being inducted to the Rock Walk of Fame in Hollywood.. A long past do...!


Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 13:48pm


Well, that's almost a circular dichotomy you got going on there... He knew it'd be a hit because he was on it, and he was on it because it was good enough to be a hit. It's like the simultaneously needed AND didn't need him to make it a hit record. But I do see your point, though I still disagree.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 14:18pm




Well, that's almost a circular dichotomy you got going on there... He knew it'd be a hit because he was on it, and he was on it because it was good enough to be a hit. It's like the simultaneously needed AND didn't need him to make it a hit record. But I do see your point, though I still disagree.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 14:18pm

You can have a hit song but if you don't HIT it right it may not be a hit.. example Some bar band does a bad rendition of a Led Zeppelin song.. As good as the song is it would of never of been a hit....If they were playing it..... Or many other real HITS..When you employ the Wrecking Crew you were employing a sound..or sounds.. As a producer 2/3rds of the work is done..
A producers job is to have it "sound" good.. From the tune to the musicians and the engineer , IF they are all good you may have a hit.. It is only as good as the worst member of the project..Then you need to get it out there on the airwaves and in the market place another piece of art..Then GOOD LUCK>>>LOL



Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 14:37pm


I think I've come to the root of Chicago's problem...saturation. Here's a list off the top of my head of groups like them in the late 60's-70's;
-Lighthouse (Academy Award winning composer Harold Shore played with them for a while...they also had a string section)
-Ides of March ("Vehicle")
-Tower of Power ("You're Still A Young Man")
-Blood, Sweat, & Tears

These groups were all kind of bunched together during that time, and I'm sure the list is incomplete, so I'd think it would be difficult for one to call another an "influence". Plus, they all sounded at least a little bit similar.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 15:07pm


mrxyz, you're definitely right about hiring the Wrecking Crew as employing a sound. Same with the Funk Brothers and the Muscle Shoals crew. Just that hiring Hal Blaine alone doesn't mean employing the entire crew, and Hal did do a lot outside the crew... other than that, I think you're on.

Gitarzan, "Vehicle" and "One Fine Morning" have NEVER sounded like Chicago songs to me. Vehicle was too methodically paced compared to what Chicago was doing. One Fine Morning felt like it had a Latin feel to it, unlike Chicago who sound like straight laced rock, or jazz rock. Tower Of Power was around after Chicago struck big. BS&T I thought sounded more pop than Chicago. Chicago also made a much better usage of vocal harmonies.

Supposedly, all those horn rockers take influence from the Outsiders who had "Time Won't Let Me" in '66. Some say it came more from the Buckinghams whose big records were in '67. Others point to the Grass Roots' records like "Midnight Confessions." And on the arguments go. Heck there were horns in the Four Seasons' "Opus 17 (Don't You Worry 'Bout Me)" from '66, and Elvis Presley's "Hard-Headed Woman"... and that goes all the way back to '58!

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 15:14pm


Philip...I said they were at least a little bit similar, and they were all making hits pretty close to the same time (right about the time I entered high school). The exact timeline escapes me, but it was right about 1969-1973 that I remember hearing that general type of music a lot (horn oriented rock, jazz rock, etc...) My point is that I really don't think Chicago was all that unique. Yes, they had a lot of hits and they've been around forever, but there was a lot of buzzing during that era that was "similar"...not saying it was exact, but generally speaking...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 15:34pm


With groups like the Buckinghams, Out-Siders, and Grass Roots, I think horns were just sprinkled in here and there, and they didn't actually have horn players as part of their core group...correct me if I'm wrong. It is interesting to think about those groups and songs again, though...it had been a while.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 15:55pm


The thing I remember about "One Fine Morning" is Am7 to Bm7...over and over...LOL!!! It was one of those songs where you're excited about learning it, but get bored with it rather quickly. Later on during jams I attended, someone would ask "do you know "One Fine Morning"?" and my response would be..."NEVER HEARD OF IT!!!!"...ROFL

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 16:22pm


Cheesecrop...with the timeline suggested here, by then the "HOF"(note that I'm not giving it much credit for being a bonafide hall of fame) will be so saturated with non-deserving inductees it won't really matter who they let in. Meanwhile, there will still be the real deserving artists on the outside looking in. It's a borderline "sham" now...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 09:15am
--------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily. There is no way to retroactively correct the flubs of the past, but if the Hall were to expand it's inductees to include even just seven over the years 2010 to 2020, the acts that should rightfully be going in at this time could be joined by others left behind.

GNR, Nirvana, the Smiths, Pearl Jam, RHCP, Radiohead, etc. deserve the right to get in when there time comes immediatly. Adding in Rush & Genesis one year, Deepl Purple & Stooges another year wouldn't really be that bad, just a little time consuming, that's all.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:42pm


The one thing that concerns me is "the committee" may be reluctant to admit they "screwed up" on these omissions. What makes an eligible artist more worthy now than when they were first eligible? Very confusing...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 17:56pm


The difference between Chicago and all those other Jazz-Rock Fusion groups you mentioned is that Chicago lasted!!!

The Billboard Top 40 Albums Chart: The Top 2 Charting Artists of the 1970s:

01. Elton John
02. Chicago

The Billboard Top 200 Albums Chart: The Top 5 Charting Artists of the 1970s:

01. Elton John
02. Elvis Presley
03. Neil Diamond
04. Barbra Streisand
05. Chicago

The Top 5 All-Time Charting Bands on the Billboard 200 Albums Chart:

01. The Beatles
02. The Rolling Stones
03. The Temptations
04. The Beach Boys
05. Chicago

The Top 4 All-Time Charting Bands on the Billboard Top 100 Singles Chart:

01. The Beatles
02. The Rolling Stones
03. The Bee-Gees
04. Chicago

Chicago is the only band on those lists that is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 01.25.09 @ 18:27pm


I am a long time fan of Rock & Roll music and was a teenager back in the mid-fifties when the term was coined and the age of rock and roll was born. I am surprised and appalled by the apparant snub of certain artist for admisssion to the "Hall." I wholeheartedly agree with Roy regarding the group Chicago and their snubbing by the "600 voters" on entrance to the R&R Hall of Fame. They were extremely innovative and a significant influence in their era! Actually, I'm not sure why it's called R&R Hall of Fame because while leaving out groups like Chicago and true early Rock and Roll performers like Connie Francis and admitting all kinds of performers from other genre the name should be changed. Also, I don't understand how they could say "statistics" aren't really a consideration...WHY? They just admitted Wanda Jackson who was more of a country performer (or perhaps "Rockabilly"). Was her influence and innovation greater than that of Connie Francis? Not in my opinion and I grew up in that era. Connie Francis was innovative and her influence was far reaching and her statistics are more impressive than all but a handful of other inductees,including male, female and groups. I'm not saying that any of the inductees so far are not deserving, but I am shocked every year when gigantic acts like CHICAGO and CONNIE FRANCIS and now BON JOVI are seemingly snubbed by these 600 mysterious voters. If they aren't elected next year, I'd suggest changing the name to R&R Hall of Shame!!

Posted by Bill on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 14:42pm


I think Connie Francis' music was a little too light to be considered "rock". When Wanda Jackson hit the scene she was "rockabilly" to the core...her music didn't morph into pure country until a little later. This is not to say that either wasn't influential, but Jackson was a little earlier and definitely had a harder edge...if she wasn't the first woman to be out performing rock, then I don't know who was.

It's really hard to compare the two...apples to oranges, if you will...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 14:51pm


It's not the "mysterious 500+ voters" that should be blamed for snubbing Chicago. Chicago never even got nominated! (The Nominating Committee is not that mysterious, their 30+ members can be found on this site and include people like Dave Marsh, Little Steven, Seymour Stein, and Paul Shaffer). Who knows what The 500 would do if they did get on the ballot.

Posted by The_Claw on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 15:58pm


I am a long time fan of Rock & Roll music and was a teenager back in the mid-fifties when the term was coined and the age of rock and roll was born.

Posted by Bill on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 14:42pm
--------------------------------------------------
Very, Very interested in what you say about being a teenager then. What was the first rock records you can remember hearing/buying? Is it Elvis in 55-56, or deeper?

If so, how deep? Haley & the Comets "Crazy, Man, Crazy" in 53?

Moondog Coronation Ball in Cleveland 52?

Jackie Brenston "Rocket 88" in 51?

I am very interested, so please post again if you get a free minute. Thanks.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.26.09 @ 16:35pm


Why do I not find David Byrne or Talking Heads? FRL, these artists seem to be missing. First formed in 1971 - would be eligible in 1996?

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 12:36pm


oops! Nevermind, I see they were inducted 2002.

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 12:39pm


Zu, Nomeansno, Einstürzende Neubauten, Current 93, Nurse With Wound.

Posted by Jack H. on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 16:14pm


heart,pat benatar - give these ladies a break , they deserve it, some of these selection are boring , the shows are boring and nobody cares anymore.

stop trying to be so cool - chicago was relevant for about 12 years.


Posted by seriously on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 17:39pm


I wonder if The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame would ever pick a year to to induct only artists in the Non-Performers Category

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 02.19.09 @ 09:33am


http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_halloffame_non.html

Candidates for the Non-Performers Category:

Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller
Jeff Barry & Ellie Greenwich
Thom Bell & Linda Creed
Bert Berns & Jerry Ragavoy
Boudleaux & Felice Bryant
Vivian Carter, James Bracken and Calvin Carter
Barrett Strong & Norman Whitfield
Cynthia Weil & Barry Mann

Lou Adler, Cholly Atkins, Arthur Baker, Richard Barrett, Steve Binder, Otis Blackwell, Deborah Chessler, Lew Chudd, Don Cornelius, Bob Crewe, Maxwell Davis, Luther Dixon, DJ Kool Herc, Tom Dowd, Fab Five Freddy, Charlie Gillett, George Goldner, Lee Hazlewood, Jimmy Iovine, Glyn Johns, Evelyn Johnson, Marion Keisker, Alexis Korner, Arif Mardin, Cosimo Matassa, Terry Melcher, Willie Mitchell, Chips Moman, Richard Nader, Jack Nitzsche, Dan Penn, D.A. Pennebaker, Lee "Scratch" Perry, Norman Petty, "John R." (John Richbourg), Sylvia Robinson, Bunny Robyn, Art Rupe, Lester Sill, Russell Simmons, Jesse Stone, Paul Williams, Wolfman Jack, John Simon, Phil Ramone, Quincy Jones, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster, Bernie Lowe, Kal Mann, Dave Appell, Mort Schuman, Steve Barri, P.F. Sloan

Posted by Roy on Friday, 02.20.09 @ 05:33am


Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller are already in the Rock Hall.

Posted by RAKER on Friday, 02.20.09 @ 05:54am


Artie Kornfeld should be on the list of Non performers as well. If the Hall did more research they would find that his accompishments surpass most of the non performers already inducted. He probably hired, mentored and worked along side most on the committee. I think the hall does a diservice to Rock and Roll by not having Artie in the HOF.

Posted by Jed Taylor on Monday, 03.2.09 @ 14:05pm


I can not believe "RUSH" is not in the Hall. They are probably one of the best rock bands ever. This nominating committee is just looking to sell out there dinner and not worry about the truly Great bands that are not even being considered.

Posted by Mike on Saturday, 03.14.09 @ 22:29pm


The very first post by Liam hits it right on the money... influence and innovation should be the main criteria. Otherwise, their would be a whole 'nother level of controversy added to what's already a controversial voting process to begin with...(Did Wanda Jackson really influence or innovate anything??)Anyway, at least the hall has the right idea by using influence and innovation as SPECIFIC criteria... and then, work from there.

Posted by ray on Sunday, 03.15.09 @ 19:31pm


The induction criteria for the Rock and Roll Hall of Shame is a complete smoke screen and is completely inconsistant. This little club of 30 called the voting commitee only votes favoritism. Think about it, if these 30 morons don't like a band or artist than they will NEVER get inducted. And what is going to change their mind? Are they ever going to wake up one morning and suddenly like a band? I think not.

Dave Marsh of Creem Magazine is one of these idiot hypocrites. How much money do you think Creem Magazine made with Kiss on the cover? Yet he does eveything to keep Kiss out, a huge omission!

Influence and innovation my ass. There are numerous bands or artists inducted that had neither. How do you measure influence if a band does not come right out and say they were influenced by someone? I think it is more public perception than fact. All these people on this site that claim someone influenced someone else is mostly opinion and not fact.

Innovation is very rare. Most bands are guitar, bass, drums and vocals a couple of versus a chorus a lead another chorus end of song. The fact that it is different musicians doing it makes it different not innovative.

If a rock and roll band sells miliions of albums again and again and performs to millions of fans all over the world again and again they should be considered for induction. Not all this criteria bullshit! But they should be considered for the Peoples Choice Rock Hall of Fame not the current Rock and Roll Hall of Shame.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Shame is an embarassment to Rock and Roll.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Tuesday, 03.17.09 @ 16:08pm


SpaceTrucker,

I agree with most of what you're saying. There have been a lot of questionable inductions. I love John Cougar Mellencamp(I own all of his albums).. but I still don't know what he innovated or influenced. But you got the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Elvis, Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, U2, Prince, R.E.M, Run DMC, Grandmaster Flash, as well as others that I can't remember off the top of my head, that HAVE had measurable influence, and deserve to be recognized. If anything, the voting system needs to be overhauled. And if this excludes even more artists, then so be it... but using criteria such as sales would throw the whole process even more off-kilt than it already it is... there are too many artists that have sold many records.. but all too many of them haven't exactly been of "high quality." That's why chart success has to be kept separate from critical recognition. Anyway... just one person's opinion.

Posted by ray on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 03:23am


Doesn't chart success have something to do w/validity? You can sit there and talk all you want about some act in the underground, but if they remain so underground that the general public has no perception of them whatsoever, then have they really achieved anything?

I was thinking about how I have heard comments over the past few years about how there are still talented acts out there, but you just don't hear them (this was one of Liam's points, if I recall). This line of thought has been going on for several years now. Don't you think that if there was this actual great reservoir of talented bands, they would have broke through at some point? Consider it from the point of view of 20 yrs ago. There were acres of bands in Seattle running around, trying to get past the metal, under record industry conditions which were much more favorable then they are now. They did eventually get through.

Apply that to now. With such a downturn, both real & implied, in both talent & sales, don't you think that these acts that were supposed to be underground... you know, the acts that would have been "underground" say in 2004-2005... would be aboveground hit-makers today? Dare I say, perhaps the average audience has got it all wrong when it comes to a Fall Out Boy or a Nickelback. After all, if it was so lame as everyone says, wouldn't something have come along to knock it off quite easily?

There is something to be said for sales - it is a validation of a sort - maybe it's not the be-all & end-all of artistry, but it does say something about what forms of artistry are "innovative" & "influential".

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 05:40am


Record sales and concert attendance means the people have spoken through their actions. I'm not talking about a single or even an album that sells millions, many artists or bands have done that, I'm taking about doing consistantly over a long period of time, that to me is a worthy in ductee.

Paul Stanley of Kiss said it best when he said "The beauty of America is that basically you can start any private club you want to. This one happens to be called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's a very impressive name for a club but, it's an illusion. It's the creation of a group of industry people and critics who decide who they deem as qualified to be in their little admiration society. It's their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but, It's not the Peoples Rock and Roll Hall of Fame"

30 individuals called the "Nomination Committee" decide who is in and who is not. The 550 or so voters that elect inductees never get a chance to have a say if a band or artist does not get by the Nominating Committee. On the Rock and Roll Hall of Shame website these 30 individuals have the balls to call themselves the "Leaders of the industry" That is complete BULLSHIT to me! Who put them in charge? Oh I forgot they did.

What the Rock and Roll Hall of Shame is doing to the very essence of Rock and Roll, how they are exploiting it for money really pisses me off and I wish it did not exist.

The problem is many of the indutees never even played Rock and Roll. It's so watered down now that anyone can now get in, it is a real mess. It is supposed the be about honoring Rock and Roll and it dosen't.

It took these morons ten years to induct one of the greatest Rock Bands ever, Black Sabbath, and Madonna got in the first year of eligibillity. And that is only one of many lame inductions these idiots have made. It's their Rock and Roll Hall of Shame, not mine.

Long live The Peoples Choice Rock Hall of Fame!!!

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 11:33am


But Madonna fits your description of a long-running, successful career, whereas Black Sabbath has had many hiccups, squabbles, lineup and name changes.

You may need to examine where your personal criteria may actually be shooting yourself in the foot with regard to which bands you want to be recognized.

@Cheesecrop: It depends on how you identify the mainstream. There's a huge amount of room between garage and bar bands and radio top 100s. Animal Collective's last album hit #13 on Billboard. That's pretty mainstream, I'd say.

The concept of a band rising up and "breaking through" in the media is pretty outdated, though. Some can, it's not impossible, but it involves a lot of compromise. As their profits dry up, record companies are becoming more conservative about who they back and how much they're willing to do to promote someone. The music market is still pretty huge, though, and there's still plenty of money to be made and fans to be won. The big difference is the channels. I've been to plenty of sold-out shows in sizable venues for bands I'd never expect to hear on the radio, but they're certainly not "underground."

Posted by Gurloes on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 12:39pm


Gurloes,

Madonna dosen't even play Rock and Roll! She should be thrown out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Shame on her ass! The original line-up of Black Sabbath made a life time of kick ass Rock and Roll.

Don't even mention Madonna in the same conversation as Black Sabbath are you kidding me!!!

A lot of the bands and artists discussed on this website make me sick. The Rock and Roll Hall of Shame is supposed to be about Rock and Roll and so is this website called Future ROCK Legends not all this pussy shit. I'm pissed off about how wtered down it has become. Anybody else?

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 13:40pm


ok, spacetrucker.. you think it should just be rockers? are you going to throw me out with madonna too? what about the ramones? do they qualify as rock to you, or is punk something else? how about my buddies leonard cohen, johnny cash and bob marley?

let's see your new list of who is rock and who is not.

Posted by Aretha Franklin on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 14:42pm


Bye Aretha,

As well as Johnny, Leonard and Bob. The Ramones ROCK! They are true Ledgends.

Welcome Rush, Kiss, Alice Cooper, Judas Priest, Deep Purple, Grand Funk Railroad, Iron Maiden. These boys ROCKED!!!

It's Rock and Roll not country, not whimpy and not reggae.

Long Live The Peoples Choice Rock Hall of Fame!

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 15:06pm


Space, I thought you were saying something intelligent with your first post, but now I see you're just spouting idiocy. If you're only going to induct hard rock/classic rock acts, your scope is truly myopic. I have nothing against the acts you mentioned getting in, but your approach is closed-minded.

And "The Peoples [sic] Choice Rock Hall of Fame" is a terrible title. I'm no elitist, but for ANY hall of fame, John Q. Public is the LAST measuring rod you would EVER want to use.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 16:00pm


The concept of a band rising up and "breaking through" in the media is pretty outdated, though. Some can, it's not impossible, but it involves a lot of compromise. As their profits dry up, record companies are becoming more conservative about who they back and how much they're willing to do to promote someone. The music market is still pretty huge, though, and there's still plenty of money to be made and fans to be won. The big difference is the channels. I've been to plenty of sold-out shows in sizable venues for bands I'd never expect to hear on the radio, but they're certainly not "underground."

Posted by Gurloes on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 12:39pm
--------------------------------------------------
It would seem to me that w/the profits drying up the record companies would want to go out of their way to avoid the status quo. Your right about Animal Collective. At the same time, you'd think they would have easily plowed over such a perceived weak field of competition, yet they've yet to really make a dent in the mainstream. It raises the question of just how pathetic this mainstream really is. It seems as though perception vs reality might be harder to grasp than earlier thought.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 17:36pm


Philip,

I did not say hard/classic rock only, I only listed some glaring omissions.

I agree with Elvis, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, The Beatles and so on being inducted, but why does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have to be the bastard child that allows all forms of music to be inducted? Black Sabbath is not in the Country Music Hall of Fame, Metallica is not in the Rap Hall of Fame (if there were one) The Police are not in the Motown Hall of Fame (if there is one)this is my point why is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame the musical sponge?

Money, plain and simple. It's not about the nominating committee doing the right thing, they have their own agendas and it really pisses me off when they make arrogant statements like "I will do everything to keep Kiss out" or "Rush will not get in along as I have a say" who do these assholes think they are?

I said earlier that the people have already spoken through record sales and concert attendance. John Q public has everything to do with the success of a group or artist so why not have a say in who is deserving to be inducted in some sort of Rock Hall of Fame.

Philip I was really pissed off when I read your post. I did not appreciate the "spouting idiocy" comment but during the ride home I listened to some kick ass Megadeth and it put me in a better mood. I am 50 years old and have loved rock music pretty much my whole musical life and I will never stop. I am pissed off the direction the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been going and I am going to say something about whether you like it or not.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 18:36pm


Doesn't chart success have something to do w/validity? You can sit there and talk all you want about some act in the underground, but if they remain so underground that the general public has no perception of them whatsoever, then have they really achieved anything?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 05:40am

---------------------------------------------------

No. Underground acts that remain underground definitely have not achieved anything. This is why music is in trouble today. You got 16 year old kids who listen mainly to songs from the 80s and 90s... scoffing at modern music, which is suffering, because of a lack of modern influence. I really don't disagree with your statement above. I just don't think that chart success can be measured along with influence and innovation. The artists that I mentioned earlier(Beatles, R.E.M, U2, Run DMC, etc.) were very influential artists... who happened to be very successful... they would not have been as influential as they were without that success.

Now, if the main determining factor for deciding who gets in the hall would be measured by total album sales, total # of top 10 hits, gross concert sales, etc... then that's a whole different thing altogether. If this was the case, Chicago and Hall and Oates should have been in a long time ago.

I'm far from being an R & R hall of fame apologist. Like I said, the whole process needs an overhaul. But,to me, greatness in music achievement cannot be determined through statistics. It's not like the football or baseball hall of fame, where the number of touchdown passes, sacks, pitching wins, and home runs are vital in determining an inductee. Music is a little more abstract than that.

Posted by ray on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 02:40am


No. Underground acts that remain underground definitely have not achieved anything. This is why music is in trouble today. You got 16 year old kids who listen mainly to songs from the 80s and 90s... scoffing at modern music, which is suffering, because of a lack of modern influence.

Posted by ray on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 02:40am
--------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. I cannot understand why any kid today would jump onto the bandwagon of 80's & 90's music at all. Heck, we all knew the stuff in the 60's & 70's was there - we thought some of it was good & some bad. We never jumped all over it though. I can't recall a single person who said that Deep Purple were better than Motley Crue when I was 14/15/16/17, even though we knew what Purple had left behind.

I want to see these kids rattle the floorboards with what they've got, but all they want todo is suck up to my ex-favorites. If I were a kid today, I'd bury them all... Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Zep, AND GNR, AND NIRVANA - GET RID OF THEM ALL! I experienced the 80's & 90's, had a lot of fun doing so. Maybe it's selfish for me to want to experience them again, off to the side, but I can't help wondering why this crowd doesn't want to kick all their *&&%^!!!!!

ROCK & ROLL IS NOT A HAND-ME-DOWN REVOLUTION, NOR SHOULD IT EVER BE!!!!!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 06:17am


So, you're saying that each generation should "stick" to their own music? My lifetime spans 4-5 generations of rock music...which one do I need to stick to?

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 07:35am


Only 20th Century artists should be inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 09:30am


I am doing a report on Madonna and I was Wondering if you could give me some info on her.

Posted by Emily Galli on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 10:05am


That is pretty obvious Roy considering any artist that started at the beginning of the 21st Century will not be eligible until 2026 or 2027.

Glad to see that you are on top of things here.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 11:35am


I can give you some info about Madonna. She sucks. That pretty much sums it up. Worthless hag is probably appropriate, too.

Posted by NoRoomForPop on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 13:42pm


So, you're saying that each generation should "stick" to their own music? My lifetime spans 4-5 generations of rock music...which one do I need to stick to?

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 07:35am
--------------------------------------------------
Not what I was aiming at here. In a way, you have hit a part of what I meant when you said your lifetime spans 4-5 generations.

Rock & roll is an open slate. The baby boomers had every right to rewrite what occurred in the 50's & early 60's to their own taste, because it was their turn to control the destiny of the music. Even if some 60's boomers didn't care for what the 70's boomers did, well, that's tough. The 70's kids were incontrol at that point.

The Generation X crowd had it for the better portion of the 80's & 90's, and had every right to change it to suit their own tastes, irregardless of what preceding generations thought. Now I come across the current Millenium generations that seem to wallow in nostalgia. I want to see what they have to offer to the music. It's their time! They're in control now, & I want to see where they take it! Most of the people on this site have forfeited the rights to shaping rock & roll years ago. When all I see is regurgitations of the same stuff I remember, it saddens me.

You get about 10-15 yrs. MAX, to actually shape the direction of rock before it becomes obvious a new generation will take full control. Don't YOU want to see what the kids of today can really do?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 18:08pm


Cheesie...Absolutely! I just thought you were trying to turn me into my dad or something...LOL!!!(Not thet there's much wrong with him, except a few years back..."What the hell are you listening to that s**t for???!!!). I will admit that I went to "Phantom of the Opera" on Sunday, and it was great!!! There's a twinge of rock in that, but there's no question about those people's ability to SING!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 18:15pm


Cheesecrop,

I love your post, asking today's generation to crank out the next version of Rock and Roll.

Unfortunately today's most popular music comes from sampling, pro tools and lack of talent and the ability to play an instrument. It almost seems like we are going through another disco music era, mindless thumping sounds with a dance beat.

I don't think this generation is mad enough or has a reason to rebel, not yet anyway, but it's coming, it always does.

I think that is why the kids that want to rock today have to go backwards. Just look at the phenomenon of Guitar Hero. I know it's just a video game that kids love to play but they love the songs also.

I was listening to Howard Stern awhile back when he was interviewing Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister and Dee said his kids were playing Mountains's Mississippi Queen on Guitar Hero and they were walking around singing it later so Dee called Leslie West and let his kids talk to the man who actually wrote and sang the song and they were blown away. I thought that was a cool story.

My point is this generation's bands really don't rock for the most part, I know some do but the most popular stuff (I refuse to call it music) is rap and hip hop.

The other thing is there are so many types of music to choose from these days that one form of music doesn't dominate the music scene like it used to when we were young.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Long Live Rock and Roll!

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 19:43pm


I agree with Elvis, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, The Beatles and so on being inducted, but why does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have to be the bastard child that allows all forms of music to be inducted? Black Sabbath is not in the Country Music Hall of Fame, Metallica is not in the Rap Hall of Fame (if there were one) The Police are not in the Motown Hall of Fame (if there is one)this is my point why is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame the musical sponge?--SpaceTrucker

Because Rock And Roll is the bastard child of gospel, blues, country, folk, and even jazz. Motown IS part of rock'n'roll. Soul is a part of rock'n'roll. Reggae has contributed to the evolution of rock 'n' roll. As has rap. Also, the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame sets its definitions on those whose music were important upon the evolution of rock 'n' roll music, REGARDLESS of whether the artist themselves were rock 'n' roll. Other halls of fame, like country, have demanded that the inductees themselves have been within that format. The RNRHOF has not. They've chosen to be broader in its scope and acceptance.

"Money, plain and simple. It's not about the nominating committee doing the right thing, they have their own agendas and it really pisses me off when they make arrogant statements like "I will do everything to keep Kiss out" or "Rush will not get in along as I have a say" who do these assholes think they are?"--Space

I won't say ego (or money) doesn't play a part, but warts and all, they are also still some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject of music, particularly rock'n'roll.

"I said earlier that the people have already spoken through record sales and concert attendance. John Q public has everything to do with the success of a group or artist so why not have a say in who is deserving to be inducted in some sort of Rock Hall of Fame."--Space

Because commercial success isn't a requirement. It isn't even that much of a helper, anymore either. I want to make it clear... I took a similar stance to this earlier in this thread. However, what I said was that it shouldn't be too much to ask that John Q. Public has actually heard of the acts that get nominated and inducted. That's a bit different from saying the public should have a vote. And I still stand by that. There are so many reasons why the public shouldn't. Particularly, there's a huge gap of knowledge the public has. More often than not, the public isn't going to be able to name the artist that recorded a song. I remember reading in reviews of the play Jersey Boys that one of the more common reactions was, "I didn't realize that the Four Seasons recorded all of those songs that I remember!" Or how about when someone says their favorite American rock act is Pink Floyd? You really want that being the deciding factor as to who gets in?

On the other side of the coin, these experts have devoted their lives and careers to making sure they got their facts straight. They're the ones who not only dig through archives looking to see who said what, but they're also the ones chronicling those archives. In the end, it does comes down to opinions, but let's make sure that they're INFORMED opinions that are making the calls. John Q. Public, by and large, is not informed.

"Philip I was really pissed off when I read your post. I did not appreciate the "spouting idiocy" comment but during the ride home I listened to some kick ass Megadeth and it put me in a better mood. I am 50 years old and have loved rock music pretty much my whole musical life and I will never stop. I am pissed off the direction the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been going and I am going to say something about whether you like it or not."--Space

Fine. Say whatever you like. But if I think what you're saying is idiocy, I'm gonna say so, whether you like it or not.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 03.20.09 @ 15:41pm


Hey Philip,

Which Nominating Committee Member are you?

"It's only Rock and Roll, but I like it"

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 03.20.09 @ 15:57pm


Are ANY of the Nominating Committee members named Philip?

Actually, I don't know. But I assure you, they'd find even my views too pedestrian. Sorry SpaceTrucker, keep trying.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 03.20.09 @ 17:04pm


I don't think this generation is mad enough or has a reason to rebel, not yet anyway, but it's coming, it always does.

I think that is why the kids that want to rock today have to go backwards.

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Thursday, 03.19.09 @ 19:43pm
--------------------------------------------------
Could that not be where the next revolution comes from - looking backwards?

I am wondering if it's in fact necessary to have something outside the realm of popular culture to rebel against, i.e. political, social, economic, etc. in order to rebel, or at least set up some kind of discourse (non-mainstream)?

I'd like to think that perhaps the next revolution may be directed against rock itself - namely the actual structure of the band. Challenging the music for the music's sake seems to be something not only worthwhile, but outside of any kind of external interference as I mentioned above.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 03.20.09 @ 17:36pm


I have only five words to write: Chicago and the Doobie Brothers....

Posted by Jeff on Thursday, 04.2.09 @ 16:01pm


popularity , record sales, awards - this doesn t matter with the hof commitee ???

its like baseball hall of fame saying world series , MVP awards and stats don t matter - this commitee is really full of themselves.


sounds silly to me.

Posted by golfer on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 16:25pm


I find it very hard to believe you are taking too long to bring Iron Maiden on board! They are a fantastic Band and they've been in the music business for over 20 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!! Besides they were here before any of the ones you have already inducted!!!!

Posted by LULU on Monday, 04.6.09 @ 08:46am


Roger Friedman was fired from the Rock Hall. What does this mean? Chicago's in?

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 04.7.09 @ 10:21am


IT'S OFFICIAL: DAVE MARSH HATES CHICAGO AND BERNIE TAUPIN!

I SENT DAVE MARSH TWO EMAILS:

CHICAGO - THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME

BERNIE TAUPIN - THE 2010 ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME (NON-PERFORMERS CATEGORY)

DAVE MARSH READ AND DELETED MY BERNIE TAUPIN EMAIL AND JUST DELETED MY CHICAGO EMAIL WITHOUT READING IT.

I ASKED HIM WHAT HE THINKS OF CHICAGO'S MUSIC AND BERNIE TAUPIN'S LYRICS AND WHY THEY ARE NOT IN THE ROCK HALL.

I ASKED HIM TO PLEASE WRITE BACK AND HE DIDN'T.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 04.7.09 @ 14:11pm


THIN LIZZY: Should've long ago been parked at the rock h-o-f. A terrific twin guitar motor, oiled by Philip Lynott's Smooth vocals & athleticaly melodic bass and Brian Downey's powerful, yet controlled sparkplug drumming and the whole vehicle was lined with a balance of both touching ballads & powerful riff rockers. This was a very influential group - just ask U2, Metallica, etc. They probably produced 6 very good-great albums from "Nightlife" though "Black Rose". At their bst as vibrant & powerful as any rockers from the 70s

Posted by Les on Saturday, 04.11.09 @ 22:55pm


While it has taken me almost three hours to read all of the above opinions. Some have validity and some are just.....oh how shall I put this..CRAP!!! Many of the posts above are not on point with the topic!!

I think that the fact that there is absolutely NO TRANSPARENCY to the Nomination Or Selection process is the root cause of the real problem.

I understand Mr Stewart's stance that it is basically not a popularity contest.
Everyone knows that it isn't a popularity contest or KISS, RUSH, Thin Lizzy, YES, Chicago, Judas Priest, and many others would already be in.

I am reminded of the fact that A former member of the nominations board once said to a reporter:

"At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner.(do you see $$$$$$$ signs in her head) That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist ... I saw how certain pioneering artists of the 50s and early 60s were shunned because there needed to be more "name" power on the list, resulting in 70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today."
What happened to Integrity

Ultimately it is all about the benjamins (ie MADONNA....what did she bring to rock and roll besides pointed bustiers) with the committee, who creates the nominees list.

I also understand that to "blatently exclude" bands such as KISS (35 years and still going), YES (41 years and still going), Chicago (42 years and still going), RUSH (41 years and still going, and in it's original form), King Crimson, Thin Lizzy etc is a complete slap in the face to all of the artists who have devoted their lives to the Genre.

I do stand firmly in my belief that the number of years since the first album release is the first most important criteria.

Influence and demonstrable significane in the genre, being the next.

Then they do need to look at things like album sales/ticket sales/bodies of work (which in the case of Boston would not be a valid criteria).

Another suggestion would be that each year for say the next 10-15 years they have a list of 4 artists that the public can select as the "Peoples Choice Inductee" One per year.

The criteria would need to be a lot more defined for the Nomination committee. Say base it on 30+ years in the business,album sales/ticket sales/bodies of work and create a list of four and send the ballots to the masses. Do this each year untill you have the paying field leveled, but for no less than 10 years.

Posted by Leslie on Tuesday, 05.5.09 @ 10:08am


Leslie- with someone like Madonna, her impact and musical output is as strong as the name. had she not been inducted upon eligiblity, it would have been the female equivalent of Elvis not getting inducted upon eligibility. And, as alays, it's not just about rock and roll as a genre, but music itself. Do some people really not know that Madonna has enjoyed a decent amount of acclaim for her work (and herself as an artist, either one of the greatest, most important, etc.)? Just asking, because the way some people talk, it's like they're unaware of it.

In the case of some acts- like Chicago- I've said how later work may have hurt the group's chances. Not that their best work even was highly acclaimed (it wasn't), but it definitely was more respectable (critically) than what it produced in the 80s. Now, I happen to enjoy the 80s work, but I understand why it's frowned upon by the "rock elite." Same reason acts like Foreigner, Journey, Barry Manilow, some big-voiced "divas" (Celine dion, Mariah Carey) have never been critical favorites.

Posted by JR on Tuesday, 05.5.09 @ 12:32pm


"Also, as the case of Madonna clearly proves, being able to afford a top-notch musician doesn't prove you're a good artist"

Ya Madonna should have hired the worst producers just to please you

She also should have created the stage by herself for her tours, not the touring producing company,just to please you

Posted by Madonnabun on Tuesday, 05.5.09 @ 13:23pm


Why hasn't Leon Russell at least been nominated? He was such an important part of the most prolific and ground breaking days of rock n roll. He has written time honored standards, he still performs to this day. Read about his life, the people he collaborated with and influenced like Joe Cocker, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, Delaney & Bonnie. If he can't be considered, there is no real criteria. Might as well induct the Archies.

Posted by Joni on Friday, 05.8.09 @ 11:10am


Why hasn't Leon Russell at least been nominated?
Posted by Joni on Friday, 05.8.09 @ 11:10am


Good question

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 05.8.09 @ 21:15pm


Leon Russell has a better shot as a Side-Man than a Performer.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 05.9.09 @ 00:28am


I'm sorry but even after I read the page with the article by Anthony DeCurtis and all the quotes from the media about this site, and the links to other music sites, I still don't understand how this site come up with the percentages for induction chance. It's not really explained.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 05.20.09 @ 17:56pm


Roy, what does that have to do with all the lists you keep on posting here??????

Posted by Brian on Wednesday, 05.20.09 @ 18:14pm


http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/04/09/rolling-stones-list-of-the-25-undisputed-guilty-pleasure-bands/

Rolling Stone’s List of the 25 Undisputed Guilty Pleasure Bands

Some of us still have a thing for Rush or Paula Abdul or RuPaul. That’s cool. To each his or her own and all that. But there are some artists who unequivocally leave much to be desired in terms of, say, quality or coolness, but still manage to rock, or at least inspire serious if shameful adoration on a mass scale. It’s these artists that we’re interested in. Artists who absolutely belong on a best guilty pleasures ever list, because that’s what we’re creating.

Those of you who proudly listen to Rush at top volume in your car all summer long, (ie thereby displaying the total lack of guilty in your pleasure), take note:? Rush come in at Number One on our official list of the Rock’s Undisputed Guilty Pleasure Bands. Like the rest of the acts on our list (which you helped put together), we love them to death, and can never forgive ourselves. The full list:

1. Rush
2. E.L.O. (Electric Light Orchestra)
3. Journey
4. ABBA
5. Chicago
6. Boston
7. Foreigner
8. Bread
9. Bon Jovi
10. New Edition
11. The Monkees
12. Motley Crue
13. STYX
14. Eddie Money
15. Simply Red
16. Kelly Clarkson
17. America
18. Wham
19. R.E.O. Speedwagon
20. Poison
21. Lionel Richie
22. Kansas
23. Air Supply
24. Hall & Oates
25. Britney Spears

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 06.14.09 @ 17:12pm


Britney Spears and Kelly Clarkson both seem oddly out of place compared to the rest. Leave it to Rolling Stone to come up with another list

Are they running out of ideas?

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 06.14.09 @ 17:18pm


Great list Roy. It gives us a little clue as to who not to expect anytime soon (sigh).

1. Rush
2. E.L.O. (Electric Light Orchestra)
3. Journey
4. ABBA
5. Chicago
6. Boston
7. Foreigner
8. Bread
9. Bon Jovi
10. New Edition
11. The Monkees
12. Motley Crue
13. STYX
14. Eddie Money
15. Simply Red
16. Kelly Clarkson
17. America
18. Wham
19. R.E.O. Speedwagon
20. Poison
21. Lionel Richie
22. Kansas
23. Air Supply
24. Hall & Oates
25. Britney Spears
--------------------------------------------------
I don't care for some of these folks, obviously. As it stands though, #'s 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, & maybe #'s 13, 20, & 24 I might look at a bit closer. Fact is, if they think they're guilty pleasures, they may never get beyond themselves & consider putting them in. The comments are a polite way of letting you know it. I can almost see them rolling there eyes & laughing at us folks down here in the trenches!


Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 06.14.09 @ 18:08pm


I would have liked to see Rush, ELO, Journey, Boston, Foreigner, The Monkees and Chicago all inducted.

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 06.14.09 @ 18:38pm


Leave it to Rolling Stone to create another meaningless and stupid list. Anyway, i would say #s 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 22, & 24 deserve induction while #s 4, 12, 14, & 17 are maybes.

Posted by Steve Z on Sunday, 06.14.09 @ 23:08pm


I've got a crazy idea. Maybe part of the criteria for entry into the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame is that you actually PLAY Rock & Roll. (This would disqualify Madonna and Grandmaster Flash for example)

Just a thought.

Posted by Keebord on Saturday, 06.20.09 @ 17:45pm


Keebord, define "rock & roll". If Madonna and Grandmaster Flash don't count, what does Yes have to do with rock & roll? Those types of bands clearly aren't interested in what Chuck Berry did. No, it's more than using guitars - that's a very simplistic signifier. After 50 years of evolution, how can anyone still deny the most fundamental attribute of "rock" music? - It's propensity to adapt and nourish other forms of music into something new. This has been the rule since Please Please Me came out 46 years ago (IMO, a far more important record than Sgt. Peppers ever was.)

It should be obvious that it's the popular music hall of fame. It always has been the popular music hall of fame. Recognizing the whole of popular music is more important; it's all tied together. The "Popular Music Hall of Fame" just doesn't have the same zing, hence "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".

Based on what's considered "true rock" by many here, I'd hate to live in a world where Foreigner and Bad Company were the benchmark for all future bands. God, that's frightening.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 06.20.09 @ 23:03pm


I don't think we need to rehash this again. I've said it before, I'll say it here and again. Look at what they say as criteria. It doesn't say that you yourself (or yourselves for a band) had to play rock ('n' roll) music at any point, but only that your contributions were germane to the evolution of rock, whether or not you yourself were rock'n'roll. That's where the distinction really lies. People like Keebord seem to think the only way to do that is to actually play rock music. (And if I've misclassified you, Keebord, I apologize.) But I can understand where he's coming from. The Baseball Hall Of Fame is about people who were heavily involved with baseball itself (and contrary to popular myth, Abbott And Costello are NOT in the Baseball Hall Of Fame. I think there was an EXHIBIT about their famous Who's On First sketch, but that's different from actually being inducted.) The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, however, broke form from the traditional concepts of Halls Of Fame. They didn't demand that you yourself play generally accepted and defined rock 'n' roll. Only that you, in some way, helped its evolution along. And so far, I don't really have a problem with any of the inductees for that reason. Some are a bit of a stretch at times, but as long as a good argument can be made, I can at least acquiesce, even if I don't agree.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 06.21.09 @ 06:43am


Yeah Philip that was a bit of a misclassification. But I get what you mean. I wasn't suggesting that you can only influence rock & roll by merely playing it but that actually playing should be part of the criteria. However, looking back I can see that this maybe wasn't the best way to go about things. Such criteria would definately effect a large # of artists who are deserving, yet like Elastic Man said, aren't interested in playing Chuck Berry. So overall I would say the criteria is best suited the way it is. Nevertheless, the politics of it all have taken the Hall from "rock & roll" hall of fame to a "popular music hall of fame. (Especially in the last 12 years or so) which is extremely unfortunate.

I didn't pay too much attention to the 400 or so comments before my own. Hope that's understandable.

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 06.21.09 @ 10:54am


No problem man. But I do think that the actual being within common perceptions/definitions of "rock 'n' roll" music should be a pillar of criteria... not essential, but significant.

It's all cool.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 06.24.09 @ 18:12pm


Bjork shouldn't have to wait until 2018, that's INSANE! Her first album was released in 1977, called "Bjork"! Yes, she had a couple bands, her most popular being The Sugarcubes ... but from '77 til today, she has been nothing short of AMAZING! Her voice singing goes from a gentle whisper to a roar that tears down walls in .01 seconds! C'mon Hall of Fame members, you HAVE to get this one right!

Posted by Bruce on Monday, 06.29.09 @ 20:56pm


What role will Michael Jackson's death play in choosing the nominees for induction into the 2010 Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame?

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 17:26pm


well since Jackson is already in as both a solo artist as well as a member of the J5, it should have no bearing unless you are thinking that the HOF will start inducting 70s and 80s dance bands similar to what Jackson was releasing at the time, (i.e. KC and the Sunshine Band and that ilk.)

Posted by Michael on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 18:35pm


Quincy Jones and Janet Jackson will be inducted in 2010 as result of Michael Jackson's death. I can't wait to see the video tribute to Michael Jackson at next year's Rock Hall induction ceremony.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 18:45pm


Michael, if any of the disco bands are going to get in on the wave of King Of Pop nostalgia, it'll be Chic first. Their next appearance on the ballot will be their sixth nomination. Some very high up people in their ranks want Chic in, and they won't go for KC, GAP, or Ohio Players (of those three, only GAP should make it in, imo) before they can finally call Nile Rodgers a member.

Roy, Janet make actually be a very good call. If they really do out of their way to at least nominate a female act, now that Wanda Jackson is in, Janet may have just risen in terms of women to put on the ballot. Only Tina and Donna have a better chance, imo.

Quincy's not too bad of a call either.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 19:27pm


Best Selling Artists In History:

1 billion records or more:

The Beatles
Elvis Presley

500 million to 999 million:

Bing Crosby
Michael Jackson

200 million to 499 million:

AC/DC
AR Rahman
ABBA
Alla Pugacheva
Bee Gees
Bob Marley
Celine Dion
Cliff Richard
The Drifters
Elton John
Herbert von Krajan
Julio Iglesias
Led Zeppelin
Madonna
Mariah Carey
Nana Mouskari
Pink Floyd
Queen
The Rolling Stones
Tino Rossi
Wei Wei

Posted by Daniel on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 16:52pm


Now my question is, of the best selling artists in music history, who is not in the RRHOF?

Bing Crosby (United States)
AR Rahman (India)
Alla Pugacheva (Russia)
Cliff Richard (UK)
Herbert von Krajan (Austria)
Julio Iglesias (Spain)
Nena Mouskari (Greece)
Tino Rossi (France)
Wei Wei (China)

What conclusions can we draw from this? Firstly the Hall has an obvious bias towards acts who aren't from either the US or UK even though they have considerable success elsewhere, secondly, virtually all of the top selling acts from the US or UK are in the Hall of Fame. This means that popularity plays an important part in induction

Posted by Daniel on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 16:57pm


There are several flaws in your argument Daniel. Firstly, most of the acts who mentioned from other countries are not Rock & Roll, but rather: World, Pop, Swing, Classical, etc. And your argument about nationalities is incorrect because Bob Marley for example, was from Jamaica. Secondly, there is no way that popularity should play a role in induction because then , with your reasoning, we would have Celine Dion inducted! (Celine Dion has virtually no influence or innovation) The way I see it Daniel, your argument falls flat on its own face

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:01pm


Cliff Richard has sold more albums than most of the inductees in the Hall of Fame and he was called "The Elvis of the UK" also, why shouldn't Alla Pugacheva be inducted if people like Madonna get inducted?

Posted by Daniel on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:03pm


What you forget Daniel, is that Cliff Richard had virtually no success outside the UK. And why would Alla Pugacheva be inducted? Simply because she sold a lot of albums in Russia? She is not Rock nor does she have any influence or innovation!

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:07pm


And Bing Crosby was a traditional pop/jazz musician. He predates Rock & Roll. Ever wonder why Frank Sinatra hasn't been inducted either?

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:08pm


I also think the "non-performer" character should be removed, How do you have a RRHOF with a category called "non-performer?"

Posted by Daniel on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:31pm


Interestingly enough Daniel, the non-performer category seems like the perfect place to induct undeserving label owners so I'm going to provide a list of deserving non-performer inductions:

Lou Adler
Cholly Atkins
Otis Blackwell
Dan Penn (now that Spooner Oldham's been inducted)
Lee "Scratch" Perry
Wolfman Jack

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:35pm


The "Non-performer" category is perfectly justifiable. This focuses on those that have had a big impact on Rock and Roll music, but did not perform any songs. It's like the "builders" category for many sports halls of fame.

Alan Freed, a DJ, coined the term "Rock and Roll" and helped get Rock and Roll into the mainstream. He definately deserves his induction, as do many other inductees that were managers, talent agents, songwriters, or record company producers. Although there are some inductees that clearly do not deserve their induction coughcoughJanWennercoughcough.

I totally support the possible inductions of Wolfman Jack, Bernie Taupin, and Jim Steinman.

Posted by Steve Z on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:37pm


Cliff Richard was in that group with Adam Faith, Billy Fury, and Vince Taylor in the late 50's-early 60's when the U.K. was essentially trying to have an answer to Elvis...so it seems, anyway. Faith and Richard did seem to enjoy the most long-term popularity there, where Fury and Taylor had the "look" more than anything else (although Taylor had a fairly decent rendition of "Shakin' All Over")

Richard did have some moderate success in the states late 70's-early 80's, I guess. But that was more just straightforward Andy Kim-like pop. He did have great chart success in the U.K. over a long period of time, though...and this isn't supposed to be the "AMERICAN Rock & Roll Hall of Fame". Just no real innovation or influence that I've ever heard of, though...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:43pm


Other Non-Performers I would include:

Bernie Lowe
Mort Shuman (should be in with his partner Doc Pomus)
Kal Mann & Dave Appell
Bob Crewe
Laura Nyro
Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil
Jeff Barry & Ellie Greenwich
Steve Barri & P.F. Sloan
Van McCoy

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:47pm


The one thing I don't like about the "non-performer" category is when "the committee" starts inducting themselves (see Wenner and the Ertegun brothers...).

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:49pm


"I totally support the possible inductions of Wolfman Jack, Bernie Taupin, and Jim Steinman."

Taupin and Steinman are good candidates too

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:51pm


Wenner and the Ertegun bros were inductions that were so completely biased it is shameful. Nevertheless, there are biased inductions for other categories too. (Percy Sledge comes to mind)

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:53pm


Laura Nyro would have to be considered a "singer-songwriter". Although she wrote a TON of hits for other people, she also recorded most of them (very respectfully, I might add). She's definitely deserving of induction...her list of hits that she wrote is staggering...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:54pm


I brought this up before, but it ties in here; "When A Man Loves A Woman" was Atlantic Recrords'(which was founded by the Ertegun Brothers) first number one single. The Erteguns were also founders of...the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Kinda smells funny, doesn't it...????

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:58pm


That's what I was getting at, smells a bit like self promotion to me

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 17:59pm


Call it fishy, but when you look at it, the Erteguns and Wenner do deserve their inductions. I've no love for Jann, but I agree with his induction. I wouldn't mind seeing more mag. people get in eventually.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:01pm


Gitarzan, unfortunately, Laura has no chance as a Performer. Her legacy is more compelling as a songwriter.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:03pm


If Wenner's induction is valid, then the first real "rock culture" magazine's founders should be inducted, too...and that would be Harvey Kurtzman and William Gaines of "MAD"...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:06pm


Philip...agreed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that she did cut several albums which would disqualify her from a "non-performers" category...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:09pm


Wasn't MAD magazine before the days of rock'n'roll though? I thought that MAD has been around since WWII.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:09pm


Mad came out in the early 50's, and almost immediately had a satirical statement to make about politics and entertainment. When Rock hit the big time, it was a focal point for Mad for decades...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:13pm


Git.... look at this with me here...

Carole King... NP despite having one of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time.
Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier, and Eddie Holland all had musical outputs (Brian less so, though)... but NPs.
Dave Bartholomew... inducted as NP because he was Fats' songwriting partner and producer, but probably should have been inducted as an EI.
Willie Dixon... inducted as an EI, but did a lot more on the scene writing and producing for Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, and other Chess label artists--should have been an NP
King Curtis... inducted as SM, should have been a P.
Little Walter... inducted as an SM, should have been as an EI
Wanda Jackson should have been a P, inducted as EI.
Miles Davis... as a P, questionable as to whether he should have been an EI.
Allen Toussaint... had SEVERAL albums, and big to the New Orleans sounds... inducted as an NP.

Inducting Laura Nyro as a Non-Performer despite her albums makes a lot more sense in retrospect.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:16pm


Another thing I mentioned before is that if a particular magazine having an impact on rock music is any sort of criteria, then the founder of "Guitar Player" should be inducted. Talk about a magazine with direct influence on musicians over the last 40 years...!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:21pm


Ok... hey, let's put the MAD people in then. Why not?

Now... here's one that's REALLY out in left field... why not the people who wrote the "Things Go Better With Coke" jingle? Or the head of marketing who first encouraged Coke to embrace Rock'N'Roll to help advertise? Coke was the first product to really embrace rock'n'roll when everywhere else, it was practically taboo (think back to the story of Jan & Dean's "Little Old Lady From Pasadena"). The Coke jingle was almost a rite of passage or badge of honor, to be asked to put YOUR own spin on it... and that was another thing, the artists had the leeway to imprint their own unique style and flavor to the Coke jingle. Thanks to Coke, advertisers SCRAMBLE to use pop and rock music to advertise. Maybe you look at it as the inaugural phase of the selling out era, but back then, doing the Coke jingle or a commercial wasn't really considered selling out.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:22pm


Sure... I didn't disagree with you there.. I don't think I did anyway.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:23pm


I know what you're saying Philip, to be sure. All I'm saying is, as with the others you mentioned, inducting her as a "non-performer" wouldn't exactly be "accurate". Just a sampling of hits she wrote;

-Stoned Soul Picnic (5th Dimension)
-Eli's Coming (Three Dog Night)
-Stony End (Barbra Streisand)
-And When I Die (Blood, Sweat, & Tears)
-Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing (Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell)

...and so on...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:30pm


I really hated that commercial. "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing"...Hmmmm?? They missed a few people, I think!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:34pm


The problem is she hasn't been too influential beyond being a widely covered artist. Shame too... her voice is divine. Her song "I Never Meant To Hurt You" is just spellbinding... stops you in your tracks.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:36pm


No no... not THAT jingle... I mean the "Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola, Things Go Better With Coca-Cola, Things Go Better With Coke... life is full, you need to be refreshed... and Coke refreshes you best, it's the refreshing-est!"

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:38pm


Yes, I'm familiar with that tune. She had a jazzy quality to her voice. She died very young...a real shame, she is rightfully mentioned with the great songwriters of the 20th century...just not good enough for the HoF, though. For my part, I rate her much higher than Leonard Cohen.

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:43pm


Oh...well, I hate THAT commercial, too!! Give me the "Hamm's Beer bear" any day...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:44pm


lol Feeling a bit harsh tonight, are we?

I don't know if you can call Nyro a better songwriter than Cohen... Cohen's was more literate, more poetic.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:47pm


I think he was more of a poet than a bonafide songwriter, don't you? Kinda like Morrison...write poetry and put music to it.

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:53pm


I would suggest inducting Quincy Jones for the Lifetime Achievement category

Posted by Oberon on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:57pm


Gitarzan, I see you are looking for Song Writer (NP) candidates. Here's one: Cynthia Weil

I just checked her bio, and here's a sampling of songs she wrote or co-wrote with her partner Barry Mann:
- You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling – the most played song in radio history
- Just Once
- Here You Come Again
- On Broadway
- Somewhere Out There
- Don't Know Much
- He's So Shy
- Never Gonna Let You Go
- We Gotta Get Out Of This Place
- Kicks
- Hungry
- Walking In The Rain
- I Just Can't Help Believing
- Soul And Inspiration
- Rock And Roll Lullaby

... there are many more, but those are some big ones. Cynthia Weil's stamp is all over the RHoF, but she is not in it! Philip, these are the so-called lite rock genre, are they not?

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:58pm


I would suggest inducting Quincy Jones for the Lifetime Achievement category

Posted by Oberon on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:57pm

Yes, Mr. Jones is actually a strong candidate

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:58pm


Telarock, nice to have you back! Haven't seen you around here in a long time. Last time i saw you there was that discussion about whether Pat Benatar was a female or not lol (remember Freeze?)

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:00pm


You've Lost That Loving Feelin' isn't the most played song on radio, Stairway to Heaven is

Posted by Oberon on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:01pm


Telarock...no doubt! I agree wholeheartedly! We thought maybe you were getting to many nightmares from this site or something...!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:04pm


Really? I thought that song had the "distinction" of being the most un-played song on radio (they woudnt play it at first). Where did you come up with this factoid?

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:06pm


Thanks for showtout Gitarzan and Keebord. My last was directed to Oberon. The song hYou've Lost That Loving Feelin' has been called "the most played" which I thought was true. But even if it isnt, Cynthia Weil & Barry Mann still need to be inducted.

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:11pm


Telarock, you mentioned that Cynthia Weil wrote "Kicks" and "Hungry" for Paul Revere & The Raiders? Interesting because both songs were two of their biggest hits along with "Indian Reservation" (which was a cover). Not much original material of their own then

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:13pm


Thanks for showtout Gitarzan and Keebord. My last was directed to Oberon. The song hYou've Lost That Loving Feelin' has been called "the most played" which I thought was true. But even if it isnt, Cynthia Weil & Barry Mann still need to be inducted.

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:11pm

You were correct Telarock. Here are the most played songs on the radio from digitaldreamdoor.com:

Over 8 Million Times

You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' - The Righteous Brothers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 7 Million Times

Yesterday - The Beatles
Never My Love - The Association
Dock Of The Bay - Otis Redding
Stand By Me - Ben E. King

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 6 Million Times

Michelle - The Beatles
Oh Pretty Woman - Roy Orbison
Mrs. Robinson - Simon and Garfunkel
Your Song - Elton John
How Sweet It Is - James Taylor
Baby, I Need Your Loving - Johnny Rivers
Every Breath You Take - The Police
All I Have To Do Is Dream - The Everly Brothers
On Broadway - The Drifters
Wind Beneath My Wings - Bette Midler
I Can't Stop Loving You - Ray Charles
Higher & Higher - Rita Coolidge
I Heard It Through The Grapevine - Marvin Gaye
Oh Girl - The Chi-lights
Up, Up and Away - The Fifth Dimension
Georgia On My Mind - Ray Charles
Save the Last Dance for Me - The Drifters

I'll stop there

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:16pm


The Top Selling Record Albums of All Time

29 Million Albums Sold
Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 - Eagles (Elektra)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Million Albums Sold
Thriller - Michael Jackson (Epic)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Million Albums Sold
Led Zeppelin IV - Led Zeppelin (Swan Song)
The Wall- Pink Floyd (Columbia)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Million Albums Sold
Back in Black - AC/DC (Elektra)

Greatest Hits Volumes I & II - Billy Joel (Columbia)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Million Albums Sold
Double Live - Garth Brooks (Capitol Nashville)
Come On Over - Shania Twain (Mercury Nashville)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Million Albums Sold
The Beatles - The Beatles (Capitol)

Rumours - Fleetwood Mac (Warner Bros.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Million Albums Sold
Boston - Boston (Epic)
The Bodyguard (Soundtrack) - Whitney Houston (Arista)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Million Albums Sold
The Beatles 1967-1970 - The Beatles (Capitol)
No Fences - Garth Brooks (Capitol Nashville)
Hotel California - Eagles (Elektra)
Cracked Rear View - Hootie & the Blowfish (Atlantic)
Greatest Hits - Elton John (MCA)
Physical Graffiti - Led Zeppelin (Swan Song)
Jagged Little Pill - Alanis Morissette (Maverick)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Million Albums Sold
The Beatles 1962-1966 - The Beatles (Capitol)
Saturday Night Fever (Soundtrack) - Bee Gees (Polydor/Atlas)
Appetite for Destruction - Guns 'N Roses (Geffen)
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd (Capitol)
Supernatural - Santana (Arista)
Born in the U.S.A. - Bruce Springsteen (Columbia)

Posted by Havengaard on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:24pm


Git... he was a poet, songwriter, novelist... he engaged in all kinds of writing, really.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:32pm


Any reason you posted all that Havengaard? Seems a bit random to me

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:46pm


Carole King... NP despite having one of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 18:16pm

Not to draw too far off topic from where it currently is, but Carole King really should've gone in as a performer.

Another dumb move by the hall.

Posted by Steve Z on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 21:55pm


hanks for showtout Gitarzan and Keebord. My last was directed to Oberon. The song hYou've Lost That Loving Feelin' has been called "the most played" which I thought was true. But even if it isnt, Cynthia Weil & Barry Mann still need to be inducted.

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 07.8.09 @ 19:11pm

You were correct Telarock. Here are the most played songs on the radio from digitaldreamdoor.com:

Over 8 Million Times

You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' - The Righteous Brothers


That must be understated because I heard " Wipe Ou" has been played over 40 million times since 1963 -2003 according to BMI or 1,000,000 x's a year . 40 YEARS. I would think You "Lost your loving feeling" would be very close the only thing that may make WIPE OUT PLAYED SO MUCH IS BECAUSE SO MANY BANDS DID COPY'S AND ALL OF THE MOVIE AND tv commercials IT IS IN..
Surfs UP

Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 01:15am


Keebord, thanks for list of most played songs. I might note that 'Every Breath You Take' is the only 80s (or more recent) song on the list. Go Police!

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 05:59am


Keebord, thanks for list of most played songs. I might note that 'Every Breath You Take' is the only 80s (or more recent) song on the list. Go Police!

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 05:59am

No problem at all. I just wanted to clarify that Oberon's statement that "Stairway to Heaven" was the most played song was incorrect. I wonder were he got that idea from

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:07pm


There has been an argument here recently that Blues and Country belong in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame according to Philip. Sorry Philip but Blues and Country have their own Hall of Fames. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame should, like BHOF and the CHOF have criteria that cites the artist "Must play Rock & Roll." The Blues acts in the Hall should have gone in under Early Influence and the Pop acts and Rap acts and others (Madonna, Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, Miles Davis, Bob Marley, Leonard Cohen, Earth, Wind & Fire should never have been inducted in the first place.)

Posted by Marty on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:30pm


Marty
You are aware that Leonard Cohen belongs to Rock and Folk Rock? I'm also curious as to why your criticizing Bob Marley's induction?

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:33pm


Bob Marley was the King of Reggae, Reggae is not Rock

Posted by Marty on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:38pm


Yet you didn't mention anything about the King of Pop, Michael Jackson.
Actually, I'm not aware of the background behind Bob Marley's induction. Would Eric Clapton covering "I Shot the Sheriff" have anything to do with it? (Remember Run DMC are in and they covered Aerosmith)

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:41pm


Michael Jackson was and will always be the King of Pop. Kings are allowed in
King of Pop: Michael Jackson (In)
King of Rock: Elvis Presley (In)
King of Country: Johnny Cash (In)
King of Blues: Muddy Waters (In)
King of Reggae: Bob Marley (In)

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:45pm


For the record, I did not post that last comment, someone was using my name again. (Was it you Marty?)

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:46pm


No it wasn't me. But however it was conveniently ignored the King of Jazz

Posted by Marty on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:47pm


How about the Kings of Leon, King Diamond or the King of Crap?

Posted by Joker on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 12:51pm


Keebord, when you posted your list, I was surprised that 'Stairway to Heaven' wasn't on it. Then I thought that the song is a bit long & would only be played by A & R oriented stations. Maybe on those only it was the most played?

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 13:31pm


I'm going to think that your probably right Paul

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 13:52pm


"Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll."

The above should be changed to:

Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll. In addition, an artist must develop, perpetuate and play Rock & Roll music

Posted by Marty on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 15:25pm


Marty-let's face it, if you change the critieria now, what are you going to do about Bob Marley, Miles Davis, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf, Grandmaster Flash, and Run DMC?

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 15:35pm


My mistake, Howlin' Wolf was inducted as early influence. Replace him with B.B. King and Buddy Guy in my previous comment

Posted by Keebord on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 15:37pm


Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker should have been inducted as early influences. Maybe even B.B. King. I don't see why Buddy Guy was inducted into a ROCK & ROLL Hall of Fame anyways

Posted by Marty on Thursday, 07.9.09 @ 15:40pm


If I'm ever asked what "Rock & Roll" is, instead of trying to do an analysis, I simply say "I know it when I hear it." We all know that it was initially a hybrid of country and blues, but somewhere along the way it became its own entity.

That being said, I'd be more comfortable calling this Hall of Fame the "Popular Music HoF"...because that's what it is! In my opinion, a Rock Hall of Fame would have far fewer inductees. The purpose of any hall of fame is to honor those who genuinely "shook up the world" with their accomplishments. Did Jann Wenner shake up the world of rock at any point in time...NO!!! Did Elvis and the Beatles...no doubt whatsoever, and any member of it should leave no doubt to anyone why they're inducted. Someone brought up the Kingston Trio...good folk group...but for a "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame"??? Why? What did they do that shook the world with their innovation and influence...nothing!! They were a good solid folk group...period. Now, one may ask what Dylan did, since he was a folk singer. For starters, he electrified it...which didn't sit well with the "folk purists", but he thumbed his nose at them and did it anyway. Another name that pops up is Beyonce...get real, people!! We're talking about something called "THE ROCK & ROLL HALL OF FAME"!!!! Even though I like them, Grandmaster Flash and Run-DMC weren't even the frontrunners in the rap movement, and from my vantage point didn't exactly "shake up the world" of Rock & Roll...it obviously went in it's own direction.

A bunch of idiots have deemed themselves a "higher authority" on rock, enough so that they feel themselves credible enough to "canonize" the greatest rock has offered over the last 50+ years, and in the process have diluted it so much that it doesn't mean much. If they did rename it the "Popular Music Hall of Fame", they'd have to go back to the start of recorded music...and that would really open a can of worms...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.16.09 @ 18:57pm


The hall's name is basically false advertisment as far as I'm concerned. Considering how many outside acts have been inducted.

Posted by Dude Man on Thursday, 07.16.09 @ 19:07pm


Queen Of Pop, Madonna (in)

Over 190 million albums sold worldwide
Over 100 million singles sold worldwide
37 Top 10 songs in USA, record breaking
artist with most certified singles in USA, behind only Elvis

Posted by Bruno on Thursday, 07.16.09 @ 20:27pm


I would call it the " Museum of Acts who we, the "Writers, Critics and Publishers deem are imporant and screw everyone else Hall of Shame"

And that is just me being nice.

Here is to hoping that the rumors of Ringo joining Paul onstage tonight at Shea actually happens.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 07.17.09 @ 05:35am


Dameon...it's appropriate, but could you get all that AND Wenner & Marsh's pictures on the sign...????

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.17.09 @ 06:19am


No - their f'n pinheads are too big, although not as big as their level of self-importance.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 07.17.09 @ 08:02am


Only 20th Century Artists Should Be Inducted Into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 07.17.09 @ 15:05pm


"Sorry Philip but Blues and Country have their own Hall of Fames. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame should, like BHOF and the CHOF have criteria that cites the artist "Must play Rock & Roll.""

But they don't, so what are you going to do about it?

"The Blues acts in the Hall should have gone in under Early Influence"

Most of those blues acts weren't around before rock'n'roll. Not Buddy Guy, not Albert King (who's not in yet anyway), Muddy Waters by maybe one or two years...

"and the Pop acts and Rap acts and others (Madonna, Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, Miles Davis, Bob Marley, Leonard Cohen, Earth, Wind & Fire should never have been inducted in the first place."

What makes them "not rock"? And what is the threshhold for your "must play rock'n'roll music" criterion? Marley had "Iron Lion Zion", a song that is definitely not reggae, and very much rock'n'roll. Cohen had "Ain't No Cure For Love" which has an old school rock'n'roll feel to it, plus "The Future" and "Never Any Good" which are definitely on the rock side. Aside from the rap vocal delivery, "King Of Rock" is a rock'n'roll record, so Run-D.M.C. could still qualify. Earth, Wind, And Fire had "Shining Star," which is a bit of funk-rock.

And let's turn that coin around... look at how many Love Song compilations there are on Elvis Presley. Clearly not rock'n'roll. Buddy Holly... "True Love Ways"... the Beatles had "And I Love Her" and "The Inner Light".... Aerosmith's "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing", or even "Walk This Way" which uses a vocal delivery similar to rap. Nazareth's version of "Love Hurts"... hardly a rocker, maybe Nazareth should be disqualified.

As far as the tut-tutting of Non-Performers goes... even the Country Hall Of Fame inducted Sam Phillips.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.18.09 @ 01:40am


http://www.hitparadehalloffame.org/index.html

You can vote at The Hit Parade Hall of Fame

Posted by Roy on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 13:56pm


The Jam, certainly, and Paul Weller solo should be inducted.

Posted by mbrlr on Sunday, 08.9.09 @ 19:49pm


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame doesn't like bands that are named after cities, states, countries or continents. They think it's cheesy. They have never inducted any bands that were named after cities, states, countries or continents. Example:

Asia
Boston
Chicago
Kansas
Orleans
Toronto

The Vancouvers
The New York Dolls
The Boards of Canada

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.13.09 @ 19:17pm


Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys-1999

Posted by classicrocker on Thursday, 08.13.09 @ 19:31pm


Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys were inducted in 1999. Early Influence.

The Presidents of the United States of America

Posted by RAKER on Thursday, 08.13.09 @ 19:39pm


"The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame doesn't like bands that are named after cities, states, countries or continents."
Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.13.09 @ 19:17pm
----------------------------------------------
Roy, I get yor point, but what about Buffalo Springfield? That's two (2) cities in one name. Buffalo, N.y. and Springfield, whatever -- where Homer lives? (just joking) Actually you could add to yor list "Europe" a pretty formidable band best known for the song "Final Countdown".
BTW: I'm putting Chicago on my 'wish list' as soon as I get around to that.

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 08.13.09 @ 22:22pm


Roy,

The New York Dolls were nominated in 2001.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 00:08am


INDUCTEES

Buffalo Springfield
Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys

NOT INDUCTEES

Asia
Boston
Chicago
Europe
Kansas
Orleans
Toronto

The Vancouvers
The New York Dolls
The Presidents of the United States of America
The Boards of Canada

Posted by Roy on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 05:43am


See, the problem with your lists is you inevitably leave out somebody & then have to correct yourself again & again.....


America
Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Hanoi Rocks
The Chesterfield Kings
Japan
George Thorogood & The Delaware Destroyers
Alabama
Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes
Atlanta Rhythm Section
Bay City Rollers
Black Oak Arkansas
Nazareth
Brownsville Station
Sir Lord Baltimore
John Denver
Ohio Players
The El Dorados
The Hollywood Flames

Now go off and make a list of eligible artists who are named after food. I'll start you off:

Bread
Hot Tuna
Tangerine Dream

Posted by classicrocker on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 13:58pm


April Wine
Moby Grape
Silver Apples
Peache & Herb
Meat Loaf
Captain Beefheart
A Taste Of Honey
Honey Cone
Honey Cone
Chocolate Watchband
Vanilla Fudge
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Lemon Pipers
1910 Fruitgum Company
Peanut Butter Conspiracy
Strawbs
Hot Chocolate

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 18:00pm


Honeydrippers
Humble Pie

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 18:02pm


He's not a musical artist, but don't forget...


WAVY GRAVY!!!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 18:45pm


Buffalo Springfield
Bob Wills & His Texas Playboys
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Otis Redding

NOT INDUCTED
Whitney Houston
Dallas Taylor (Sideman)

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 22:17pm


Only the originators of RAP music should be in the Rock Hall and that's it!! Nothing beyond the 1990s!

Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
Sugarhill Gang
RUN DMC
Beastie Boys
Afrika Bambaataa
N.W.A
Salt 'n' Peppa
Ice-T
Dr. Dre
Ice Cube
Snoop Doggy Dog
2Pac
Eminem

That's it!!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 09.3.09 @ 14:08pm


Roy, I would agree with you, except I think that you can make a darn good case for OutKast and Wu-Tang Clan too.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 09.3.09 @ 16:27pm


"Only the originators of RAP music should be in the Rock Hall and that's it!! Nothing beyond the 1990s!" - Roy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Altho I sympathize with you, not much logic in that statement Roy. Face it, the door was broke open w/Run-DMC, and the hip-hop industry, that whole DefJam crowd, is making a desperate push for artitst/genre recognition. I agree Philip, Wu-Tang clan is a meritorious group. But OutKast, can be cast out, way out.
There are very few strait-up rappers (IMO) who have any claim to the Rock Hall of Fame.

Posted by Telarock on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 13:11pm


YES!

Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
Sugarhill Gang
RUN DMC
Beastie Boys
Afrika Bambaataa
N.W.A
Public Enemy
Salt 'n' Peppa
LL Cool J
Ice-T
Dr. Dre
Ice Cube
Snoop Doggy Dog
2Pac
Notorious B.I.G
Eminem

NO!

Kool Moe Dee
The Fat Boys
MC HAMMER
Young MC
Vanilla Ice
J.J. Fad

Posted by Roy on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 13:19pm


Wow, Roy actually doesn't what everybody in the hall. Who else do you say no to Roy?

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 13:28pm


ARTISTS WHO HAVE MADE THE FINAL NOMINEES LISTS ON THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME BALLOTS BUT HAVE NOT BEEN INDUCTED YET (1986-2009):

Ben E. King, Chuck Willis, Esther Phillips, Johnny Ace, Mary Wells, Carole King,
The Dominoes, The Meters, The Stooges, Joe Tex, Darlene Love, Lou Reed,
New York Dolls, The "5" Royales, The Chantels, Gram Parsons, ABBA, Chic, Kraftwerk, MC5, Steve Winwood, Conway Twitty, The J. Geils Band, Randy Newman,
Cat Stevens, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, The Sir Douglas Quintet,
Afrika Bambaataa, Beastie Boys, Donna Summer, War

Posted by Roy on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 18:28pm


Roy, you only need to submit it once. All you are doing is wasting space by doing in more than one time.

Posted by Brian on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 19:29pm


Telarock--

Whatcha got against OutKast? They were a lot more than just "Hey Ya" and even that song was actually good, albeit overplayed. But more to the point, OutKast was actually a rap group that consistently and continuously mixed rock/elements of rock into their raps.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 09.4.09 @ 23:39pm


Philip - I should heed to everymothers advice - 'if you cant say somthing nice ...' (haha)
Seriously, "Hey Ya" is a good song, with lead sung (actually sung) by Andre. And that does rise to the level. But much of OutKast stuff I've heard is Big Bois rapping ... which I dont dig those "songs" ... hard to listen to any one of them more than once. (IMO)
As to mixing rock and rock elements, okay fine, but now give me (another) sample of an OutKast song that rises above the ordinary?

Posted by Telarock on Sunday, 09.6.09 @ 21:01pm


"The Way You Move" contains elements of soul.

"Bombs Over Baghdad" is very heavy with its elements of rock

"The Whole World" even makes use of doo-wop type scatting.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 09.6.09 @ 23:10pm


Lesee now Philip, what can I say re the 3 titles you gave?

"The Way You Move" - is a largescale rip fm Earth Wind & Fire song, but w/rap interjected. Dont give OutKast much credit for improving the song, they just resusitated it.
"B.O.B." - a greatly improved version is the remix w/RATM ... that version has hard guitar drive for the blazing tempo, and tweeking of vocals. It just "works" much better w/RATM assist. Give OutKast much creative credit.
"The Whole World" - what song this was ripped from I dont know? In Randy Jackson terms, I say: "Its just okay for me dude ... the notes are a little pitchey." An alright song, but not great. (IMO)

OutKast might be an "OK" hip-hop group, but they dont yet rise to RHOF quality. Not eligible til 2019 ... still time for development?

Posted by Telarock on Monday, 09.7.09 @ 10:06am


Tela... I think you're tripping, man. OutKast is a great group. Those are just the well-known songs. And when was EW&F's version of "The Way You Move"? Cuz I know they did a version with Kenny G, and I'm pretty sure that came out after OutKast's.

I don't think "The Whole World" was ripped, unless you think sampling is "ripping", which I don't. But really OutKast just rises head and shoulders above just about any act you can name from this decade. They blend rock and rap very deftly, and they do it intelligently, not just making pop music that's dumbed down for the masses. They showed that it could indeed be an artform.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 09.7.09 @ 10:29am


Philip, I checked it out and (oops!) guess you are right. "The Way You Move" is indded an OutKast original song. But, I sure get a 70s deja vu listening to it. Awright, so get back to me again in 2019 yrs re OutKast.

Posted by Telarock on Monday, 09.7.09 @ 13:57pm


Practical question here... If it's acceptable to induct musicians who are best known for their mastery of their instrument rather than their songwriting (Jeff Beck), why shouldn't we induct singers like Whitney Houston?

Posted by Alan on Tuesday, 09.15.09 @ 13:43pm


Whitney Houston actually has a pretty decent shot, Alan. What may hurt her is the direction her music took by the early/mid '90s. "I Will Always Love You" may have been the cap in her career, but it was a striking nail in the coffin in keeping her out. That's just my opinion. Anyhoo, her chances aren't too bad. It's just a question of if they'll want to get Donna and Janet in first, or even Pat, Heart, and Joan, too.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 09.15.09 @ 17:02pm


ABBA, really? That's somewhat shocking. I mean hell Motley Crue has been doing it for close to thirty years and is still pumping out hits and making statements. Granted they're not as huge as they were in 85 but they are still doing it better than anyone else who came out of that era. They're also inspiring a slew of band and solo artist through not just look , but sound and style. I think Motley Crue has really been over looked because they're not doing it like the Stones or Aerosmith. Which funny enough they toured with Aerosmith in 06 and did some dates with the Stones in 05. But regardless I don't understand how Motley hasn't been inducted or at least taken into serious consideration. But hey, at least ABBA's going to be in the ROCK 'N' ROLL HALL OF FAME. Jeez writing that just now really just doesn't look right. I vote for MOTLEY CRUE!

Posted by Alex Martinez on Thursday, 10.8.09 @ 02:30am


Prog or not Prog?

Pink Floyd
Genesis
Procol Harum
Deep Purple
Yes
Jethro Tull
King Crimson
Emerson, Lake and Palmer
Electric Light Orchestra
The Moody Blues
Uriah Heep
Rush

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 10.10.09 @ 12:28pm


Roy, if you want to classify Deep Purple, then classify them as hard rock. They were even more heavy metal than prog! The Moody Blues could be classified as either prog, psychedelic rock, synthpop or even symphonic rock (which is basically the same as prog, although prog is a more specific description). All the other groups are prog in every sense of the word.

Posted by Keebord on Saturday, 10.10.09 @ 13:15pm


Only 20th Century artists should be inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.12.09 @ 06:25am


Roy, technically that would be true up until 2025.

Posted by Keebord on Monday, 10.12.09 @ 08:10am


Why is it so hard for R and B groups to get in. You have added the temptations, ojays, but there are many old school r&b acts that should be inducted! The Blues, Rock and Roll and Rand B are all related so open up the process for groups like the Manhattans(Grammy 1976 Shining Star) Dramatics, The whispers etc> they are all a part of our musical history!

Posted by Justice Butler on Friday, 10.30.09 @ 12:05pm


This week's Rolling Stone magazine has an article about the Rock Hall induction process by Anthony DeCurtis.

Posted by Roy on Friday, 11.13.09 @ 11:24am


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame
http://www.rockhall.com

262 inductees in 25 years. Each band is counted as 1.

AVERAGE # OF INDUCTEES PER YEAR - 10

1986 - 16 inductees
1987 - 23 inductees - BEST YEAR EVER!
1988 - 09 inductees
1989 - 09 inductees

1990 - 16 inductees
1991 - 11 inductees
1992 - 12 inductees
1993 - 11 inductees
1994 - 10 inductees
1995 - 09 inductees
1996 - 09 inductees
1997 - 10 inductees
1998 - 08 inductees
1999 - 10 inductees

2000 - 14 inductees
2001 - 11 inductees
2002 - 08 inductees
2003 - 09 inductees
2004 - 08 inductees
2005 - 07 inductees
2006 - 07 inductees
2007 - 05 inductees - WORST YEAR EVER!
2008 - 08 inductees
2009 - 09 inductees
2010 - 13 inductees

ARTISTS WHO HAVE MADE THE FINAL NOMINEES LISTS ON THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME BALLOTS BUT HAVE NOT BEEN INDUCTED YET (1986-2010):

Ben E. King, Chuck Willis, Esther Phillips, Johnny Ace, Mary Wells, Carole King, The Dominoes, The Meters, Joe Tex, Darlene Love, Lou Reed, New York Dolls, The "5" Royales, The Chantels, Gram Parsons, Chic, Kraftwerk, MC5, Steve Winwood, Conway Twitty, The J. Geils Band, Randy Newman, Cat Stevens, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, The Sir Douglas Quintet, Afrika Bambaataa, Beastie Boys, Donna Summer, War, KISS, Laura Nyro, Red Hot Chili Peppers, LL Cool J

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 12.15.09 @ 07:53am


Only 20th Century artists should be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. The dinosaurs!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 12.17.09 @ 14:06pm


Is there a rule that says the person who gives the induction speech for an artist being inducted cannot be an artist who is also being inducted the same year?

Posted by Roy on Friday, 12.18.09 @ 08:18am


http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/04/09/rolling-stones-list-of-the-25-undisputed-guilty-pleasure-bands/

Rolling Stone’s List of the 25 Undisputed Guilty Pleasure Bands
4/9/07, 6:29 pm EST


Those of you who proudly listen to Rush at top volume in your car all summer long, (ie thereby displaying the total lack of guilty in your pleasure), take note:? Rush come in at Number One on our official list of the Rock’s Undisputed Guilty Pleasure Bands. Like the rest of the acts on our list (which you helped put together), we love them to death, and can never forgive ourselves. The full list:

1. Rush
2. E.L.O.
3. Journey
4. ABBA
5. Chicago
6. Boston
7. Foreigner
8. Bread
9. Bon Jovi
10. New Edition
11. The Monkees
12. Motley Crue
13. STYX
14. Eddie Money
15. Simply Red
16. Kelly Clarkson
17. America
18. Wham
19. R.E.O. Speedwagon
20. Poison
21. Lionel Richie
22. Kansas
23. Air Supply
24. Hall & Oates
25. Britney Spears

Rolling Stone

Posted by Roy on Friday, 12.18.09 @ 16:11pm


http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/04/06/weekend-rock-list-rocks-undisputed-guilty-pleasures/

Weekend Rock List: Rock’s Undisputed Guilty Pleasures
4/6/07, 5:53 pm EST


Some of us still have a thing for Rush or Paula Abdul or RuPaul. That’s cool. To each his or her own and all that. But there are some artists who unequivocally leave much to be desired in terms of, say, quality or coolness, but still manage to rock, or at least inspire serious if shameful adoration on a mass scale. It’s these artists that we’re interested in. Artists who absolutely belong on a best guilty pleasures ever list, because that’s what we’re creating.

You remember the rules from last week: We post five nominations today. Over the weekend you tell us what you’d add and on Monday we put up the definitive list.

Here are our five. See ya Monday!

Kelly Clarkson
Neil Diamond
En Vogue
Hall & Oates
Journey
Rolling Stone

Posted by Roy on Friday, 12.18.09 @ 16:13pm


Roy, are you referring to "Rolling Stone" or The Rolling Stones? How are the Rolling Stones a "guilty" pleasure? There is nothing to be guilty about liking The Stones, Also, how is Kelly Clarkson a "pleasure" in any way? Finally, what kind of a moron compiles a list on guilty pleasures? Based on what exactly?

Posted by Bassmaster on Friday, 12.18.09 @ 16:18pm


That is a list from Rolling Stone Magazine and there is a link. READ CAREFULLY. I made absolutely no mention of the Rolling Stones!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 12.18.09 @ 16:23pm


Thanks for the clarification

Posted by Bassmaster on Friday, 12.18.09 @ 16:28pm


Only 20th Century artists should be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. The dinosaurs!

Is there a rule that says the person who gives the induction speech for an artist being inducted cannot be an artist who is also being inducted the same year?

Posted by Roy on Monday, 12.21.09 @ 09:45am


As usual Roy, you leave the most ridiculous of posts sometimes -

Only 20th Century artists should be inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. The dinosaurs! (Roy)

21st Century artists (those who recorded their first track in 2001) will not be eligible until 2026.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 12.21.09 @ 17:34pm


Even after 21st Century artist become eligible, only 20th Century artists should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, because Rock and Roll is dead, the music industry is dead, nothing is original anymore. Only the originators should be inducted (20th century artists). Music sucks now. People should move on with their lives and find something else to do.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 12.21.09 @ 18:26pm


Even after 21st Century artist become eligible, only 20th Century artists should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, because Rock and Roll is dead, the music industry is dead, nothing is original anymore. Only the originators should be inducted (20th century artists). Music sucks now. People should move on with their lives and find something else to do.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 12.21.09 @ 18:26pm

Yea Roy, like you and all of your stupid lists and comments you make, they are getting old. So just move on with your life and find something else to do.

Posted by Brian on Monday, 12.21.09 @ 20:11pm


Is there a rule that says the person who gives the induction speech for an artist being inducted cannot be an artist who is also being inducted the same year? Plus, can one artist give the induction speech for more than one artist in the same year.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 12.29.09 @ 03:58am


No hard and fast rule, but it would look pretty bad... although I believe Keith Richards inducted both James Burton and Johnnie Johnson in 2001. Also, I would imagine it'd be rubbing salt on the wound for an artist snubbed that year to have to give the speech for one who did.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 12.29.09 @ 08:39am


Let's see, if "Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll," then what exactly are all the following doing in the RRHOF?

Bob Marley, Paul McCartney (solo), Nat King Cole, Earth, Wind and Fire, Bonnie Raitt, Steely Dan, Michael Jackson, Talking Heads, Isaac Hayes, Prince, Percy Sledge, Miles Davis, the Sex Pistols, Patti Smith, Madonna, Leonard Cohen, Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five and Run DMC

And why are all the following not doing in the RRHOF?

Link Wray, The Cars, Kraftwerk, X, The Zombies, The Small Faces, New York Dolls, MC5, Tom Waits, Captain Beefheart, Deep Purple, The Monkees, Alice Cooper, Cheap Trick, Neil Diamond, Yes, King Crimson, The Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, Uriah Heep, Chicago, Rory Gallagher, Johnny Maestro, Paul Revere & The Raiders, Dire Straits, Rush, Cat Stevens, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Donovan, T. Rex, Badfinger, Ben E. King, The Grass Roots, Johnny Rivers, Blue Oyster Cult, The Turtles

Posted by Wagstaff on Sunday, 01.3.10 @ 10:49am


I don't know if Mr. Wenner's proposed rule change is going to make it better or worse. I think the older artists still have priority over the newer artists. If this change goes into effect, the Nominating Committee might tend to look at bands like Green Day, G'n'R, Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins, while there are many older acts who haven't even made the ballot like The Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, Procol Harum, Chicago, Yes, Neil Diamond and hundreds more I can't even list.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Monday, 01.4.10 @ 05:16am


So the Hall wishes to yank the induction time up a few years?

Deep down inside, this confirms everything I have said in regards to the who's, what's, when's, why's, & how's of the Hall. In the article, they complain about the lack of a powerful class for induction. Wrong! Perhaps if your memory of rock extends only to 1965, 1970, 1975, or 1980, then this is the case. Plenty of acts from the 1980's are worthy, but as I've stated before, the committee dates the fall of rock as they remember it to about this time. Hence, no Def Lep, no Motley Crue, no Priest, Maiden, etc. The committee's personal tastes are not being sated, so they wish to shove the date forward.

As for who's getting in before who, you know where I stand on that. If you were allegedly a "HOF" act to begin with, then why quibble over when you got in? I have no issue w/Metallica getting in before some others who are still not in, cause they honestly deserve it. Nor would I have an issue w/GNR, Soundgarden, Nirvana, etc. getting in before others. Don't pin any pent-up frustrations about the 60's & 70's artists on worthy bands from the 80's & 90's. It does an injustice to the work of all involved. Besides, trying to establish some kind of "proper" order to it all is the complete antithesis of the best rock & roll, which was barely controlled chaos.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.4.10 @ 06:24am


Wagstaff, what are ya talking about? All those acrs you listed certainly are deserving- they were acclaimed, impactful acts. Maybe you missed the newsflash, but "rock and roll" is an umbrella term to describe music in general. :)

As for the years consideration- there aren't all that many acts who have been around 20 years (as of this year) that would be considered off the bat. In coming years, Nirvana would be the most obvious- the Hall isn't going to be considering acts whose primary legacy is chart and commercial success (i.e. Mariah Carey, who hits hr 20th year this year).

Posted by JR on Monday, 01.4.10 @ 08:05am


When will we get the official word on whether or not Wenner is changing the eligibility from 25 to 20 years and what year will it begin? Does this go to a vote? Or just a Wenner decision?

Posted by Roy on Monday, 01.18.10 @ 03:32am


Wow! What an understanding! Thanks appropriate for shareing!

Posted by rootbadlido on Tuesday, 01.19.10 @ 15:17pm


Only 20th Century Artists Should Be Inducted Into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 02.17.10 @ 13:26pm


99% of the bands discussed here are bands that people should be voting "no" for, but aren't, 'cause people are fanboys. If you looked at the entire list of elligibile artists, there's maybe a dozen or so, max, that are actual slights, and the rest have no business even being in the conversation.

This ain't the Hall of Pretty Good, people.

Posted by Ralph on Wednesday, 02.17.10 @ 13:40pm


Maybe we should just shut the hall of shame down since it's not Rock & Roll but what the few who get to vote decide should be there. Leonard Cohen never contributed one thing to rock and roll. If he did, it should be as a contributer and not a performer. Grandmaster Flash was never rock and roll and shouldn't even be considered. You might as well start putting country singers and jazz singer in here. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be honoring those that made a name for themselves to the public as performers. Hip hop, Rap Grunge and some of the other crap that people listen to is NOT Rock and Roll.
Let those that shine star in the hall.

Posted by Don on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 04:24am


The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be honoring those that made a name for themselves to the public as performers. Hip hop, Rap Grunge and some of the other crap that people listen to is NOT Rock and Roll.
Let those that shine star in the hall.


Posted by Don on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 04:24am
--------------------------------------------------
Grunge:

Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Soundgarden
Alice In Chains
Screaming Trees
Mudhoney
Stone Temple Pilots
Foo Fighters
Bush

You might dispute some who I listed, but that's all part & parcel w/having your own opinion. As it stands though, these stars all shined (& some of them continue to shine, to this day).

As for rap-grunge, I can't really say. You'll have to clue me in further as to this new musical development I missed...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 18:38pm


Cheesecrop...You are not allowed to have your own opinion...you could hurt yourself with it. Could be worse than running through the house withscissors!!!

Signed, Epstien's Mother!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 19:08pm


I try to form opinions all the time, but they hurt my head.

btw, was it Epstein's Mother who invented rap-grunge, or did she just go off to the side & form an opinion?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 19:23pm


Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby have been discussed by Rock Hall committee members for induction in the Early Influence category.

Posted by QAZ on Sunday, 03.14.10 @ 10:38am


One question about the induction criteria (and please forgive me if it has been answered here earlier and I didn't see it): Who decides which individual members of bands are inducted. For instance, with the Beatles, why not Pete Best? For Fleetwood Mac, why not Bob Welch? For Black Sabbath, why not Ronnie James Dio?

If anyone has any light to shed on this, I appreciate it. I relaize that one of my examples may be more obvious than the others, but I wanted to illustrate my question more than I wanted to get into a debate about the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac and Black Sabbath.

Thanks.

Posted by Joe on Monday, 03.15.10 @ 21:05pm


A great question, Joe.

The truth of the matter is...the hall is corrupt. I've grown less interested with them due to their many poor decisions, although I am still interested in the idea of a rock and roll hall of fame. I say, make another, stand-alone hall, a "do over" of sorts, and make the right choices.

Why has the hall inducted Robert Trujillo with Metallica after only appearing on one album, and not Ronnie James Dio with Black Sabbath after appearing on four? Or what about Ritchie Ramone with the Ramones, Sonny Forriest with the Coasters, Zola Taylor with the Platters, Howie Johnson with the Ventures, or most recently Steve Mackay with the Stooges?

Why induct Tom Petty with the Heartbreakers or Elvis Costello with the Attractions, and yet not Bill Haley with his Comets, Smokey Robinson with the Miracles, Bob Seger with his Silver Bullet Band, Bruce Springsteen with his E-Street Band, Buddy Holly with his Crickets, or Hank Ballard with his Midnighters? If SRV is inducted, then so should Double Trouble.

I'm willing to be alright with Dion being inducted without the Belmonts, but then why do they include his hits WITH the Belmonts under his credit? I say, induct them both separately, both Dion and Dion and the Belmonts.

If the hall only wants to induct a certain "era" of the band, then that's fine too, i.e. the "classic line-ups" of certain bands, such as Mach 2 of Deep Purple, the original 7 of Chicago, Stanley/Simmons/Criss/Frehley of Kiss. The hall should just induct any band's "classic line-up" if it has one and then any other member that have highly contributed to their band's success. Perhaps once a band is chosen to be an inductee, the committe should then vote on which members should be inducted with it.

P.S. I'm actually happy that Petty went in with the Heartbreakers and Costello with the Attractions. I was just making a point.

Posted by Steve Z on Tuesday, 03.16.10 @ 00:24am


As we all know the time between the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony and the announcement of the nominees in September is a relatively slow time for this website. I have thought up of an idea of how to pass the time. Everybody here has their own problems with the way in which the Hall of Fame is constructed. You either think that there are horrible omissions or you feel that someone got inducted that didn’t deserve it. So I think it would be fun and interesting if we made or own Hall of Fame here. My idea would be that every week would represent a given year and people would get seven votes. The top seven vote getters at the end of the week of voting will get inducted into the Future Rock Legends Hall of Fame. I felt that seven would be a good middle ground as the normal five seems too low, but at the same time 10 seems too high. Also I know that you can change your name and vote multiple times, but please refrain from doing this so this can be somewhat legit. You will be able to vote in the 2010 inductions area, the 2011 artist list, the Induction Criteria, and “The Immortals” list. The first week will be 1986. You can use this site to see what artists are still eligible in the real Hall of Fame from 1986. Here is the list of the people that are in the Hall of Fame in Cleveland that were eligible in 1986:

Little Anthony & The Imperials
Lavern Baker
Hank Ballard
Bobby ‘Blue’ Bland
Ruth Brown
Solomon Burke
The Coasters
Eddie Cochran
The Everly Brothers
Bobby Darin
Bo Diddley
Fats Domino
The Drifters
Duane Eddy
The Flamingos
The Four Tops
Bill Haley
John Lee Hooker
The Isley Brothers
Little Willie John
Carole King
Gladys Knight & The Pips
Brenda Lee
Jerry Lee Lewis
Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers
Clyde McPhatter
The Miracles w/Smokey Robinson
The Moonglows
Ricky Nelson
Carl Perkins
Gene Pitney
The Platters
Lloyd Price
Jimmy Reed
Big Joe Turner
Ike & Tina Turner
Del Shannon
The Staple Singers
The Supremes
Ritchie Valens
The Ventures
Gene Vincent
Muddy Waters
Jackie Wilson

Posted by Gassman on Thursday, 03.25.10 @ 20:46pm


Duh... its a Hall of *Fame*... meaning famous...in the positive sense (as opposed to infamous). In the mid-1960s, there were probably no bands more famous than the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the Seekers. The Seekers knocked both the Beatles and the Stones off the top of the charts. In addition to their own material, songs were written specifically for them by Paul Simon, Tom Springfield, and the Bee Gees Massachusetts although they didn't perform it until much later) The Seekers, with Judith Durham, spawned numerous acts that were influenced by them or mimicked their look and sound. The Seekers still hold the record for the largest concert attendance +200,000 at a legitimate concert venue.

As far as their staying power... their influence... the Seekers with the original members, reunited in the 1990s... more than 25 years later... and toured for years selling to sold out venues all over the UK and Australia. If there is any band that deserves to be in the Rock n Roll hall of fame that isn't in it... it is the Seekers.



Posted by TedKaye on Sunday, 04.4.10 @ 18:14pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQoaWq6mVxk&feature=youtu.be

Little Steven Explains the Nominating Process

He prefers 50s-60s acts. Honoring them because they didn't make a lot of money.

He said the Rock Hall looked at 150 candidates this year. Here is my guess at the 150 candidates:

BANDS

01. Herman's Hermits
02. The Monkees
03. The Troggs
04. The Turtles
05. The Kingston Trio
06. The Surfaris
07. The Paul Butterfield Blues Band
08. Paul Revere and the Raiders
09. The Meters
10. The Dominoes

11. The "5" Royales
12. The Chantels
13. The Sir Douglas Quintet
14. The Zombies
15. The Box Tops
16. The Ravens
17. The Clovers
18. The Caravans
19. The Chiffons
20. The Miracles

21. Procol Harum
22. The Moody Blues
23. Jethro Tull
24. King Crimson
25. Emerson, Lake and Palmer
26. Peter, Paul and Mary
27. Deep Purple
28. Yes
29. New York Dolls
30. MC5

31. War
32. Chic
33. Kiss
34. Rush
35. Kraftwerk
36. Beastie Boys
37. Red Hot Chili Peppers
38. Bon Jovi
39. Thin Lizzy
40. Def Leppard

41. Chicago
42. Blood, Sweat & Tears
43. Kool & the Gang
44. The Commodores
45. The Doobie Brothers
46. Cheap Trick
47. Heart
48. Hall & Oates
49. The Cars
50. The J. Geils Band

51. Dire Straits
52. Duran Duran
53. INXS
54. ELO
55. Journey
56. Styx
57. Boston
58. Kansas
59. REO Speedwagon
60. Grand Funk Railroad

61. Judas Priest
62. Iron Maiden
63. Motorhead
64. Blue Oyster Cult
65. Ashford and Simpson
66. Peter and Gordon
67. Sonny and Cher
68. Jan and Dean
69. Bad Company
70. Free

MEN

71. Ben E. King
72. Chuck Willis
73. Johnny Ace
74. Joe Tex
75. Lou Reed
76. Gram Parsons
77. Cat Stevens
78. Randy Newman
79. Steve Winwood
80. Conway Twitty

81. Chubby Checker
82. Ozzy Osbourne
83. Alice Cooper
84. Don Henley
85. Sting
86. Paul Anka
87. Neil Sedaka
88. Lionel Richie
89. Bobby Rydell
90. Richie Havens

91. Donovan
92. Fabian
93. Ringo Starr
94. Todd Rundgren
95. Lou Rawls
96. Jerry Butler
97. Phil Ochs
98. Harry Belafonte
99. Frank Sinatra
100. Tony Bennett

WOMEN

101. Darlene Love
102. Dionne Warwick
103. Mary Wells
104. Patti LaBelle
105. Roberta Flack
106. Joan Baez
107. Judy Collins
108. Buffy Sainte-Marie
109. Laura Nyro
110. Donna Summer

111. Cher
112. Tina Turner
113. Carole King
114. Carly Simon
115. Marianne Faithful
116. Nico
117. The Pointer Sisters
118. Linda Ronstadt
119. Tammy Wynette
120. Dolly Parton

OTHER

121. Iggy Pop
122. Steve Miller Band
123. Devo
124. Stevie Ray Vaughan
125. Los Lobos
126. Phil Collins
127. Peter Gabriel
128. Afrika Bambaataa
129. LL COOL J
130. The Penguins
131. Bette Midler
132. Cyndi Lauper
133. Tom Waits
134. Steppenwolf
135. The Guess Who
136. The 5th Dimension
138. Ten Years After
139. The Spencer Davis Group
140. Blind Faith
141. Derek and the Dominoes
142. The Smiths
143. Television
144. Roxy Music
145. Sonic Youth
146. Joy Division
147. New Order
148. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts
149. The Runaways
150. Pat Benatar


INDUCTED

146. ABBA
147. Genesis
148. The Hollies
149. The Stooges
150. Jimmy Cliff

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 04.20.10 @ 11:00am


So Roy, you don't think Phil Collins is a man?

Posted by Joker on Tuesday, 04.20.10 @ 11:03am


Hey Roy, you forgot Foreigner!

Posted by RAKER on Tuesday, 04.20.10 @ 11:16am


I just called them OTHER because I forgot to list them to begin with and I didn't want to start the list over again and change the numbers.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 04.20.10 @ 11:18am


Using LAZINESS as an excuse now Roy?

Posted by Joker on Tuesday, 04.20.10 @ 11:56am


It's plausible, but I'm thinking, how do we know the same person wasn't brought up by two or three different people, this occurring a few times? Not that they couldn't come up with 150 different names to discuss, but is it really likely that they did?

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 04.20.10 @ 19:43pm


If none of these artists are inducted in the next 5 years before the class of 1990 becomes eligible, then what the hell are we left with?

BANDS

01. Herman's Hermits
02. The Monkees
03. The Troggs
04. The Turtles
05. The Kingston Trio
06. The Surfaris
07. The Paul Butterfield Blues Band
08. Paul Revere and the Raiders
09. The Meters
10. The Dominoes
11. The "5" Royales
12. The Chantels
13. The Sir Douglas Quintet
14. The Zombies
15. The Box Tops
16. The Ravens
17. The Clovers
18. The Caravans
19. The Chiffons
20. The Miracles
21. Procol Harum
22. The Moody Blues
23. Jethro Tull
24. King Crimson
25. Emerson, Lake and Palmer
26. Peter, Paul and Mary
27. Deep Purple
28. Yes
29. New York Dolls
30. MC5
31. War
32. Chic
33. Kiss
34. Rush
35. Kraftwerk
36. Beastie Boys
37. Red Hot Chili Peppers
38. Bon Jovi
39. Thin Lizzy
40. Def Leppard
41. Chicago
42. Blood, Sweat & Tears
43. Kool & the Gang
44. The Commodores
45. The Doobie Brothers
46. Cheap Trick
47. Heart
48. Hall & Oates
49. The Cars
50. The J. Geils Band
51. Foreigner
52. Dire Straits
53. Duran Duran
54. INXS
55. ELO
56. Journey
57. Styx
58. Boston
59. Kansas
60. REO Speedwagon
61. Grand Funk Railroad
62. Depeche Mode
63. Judas Priest
64. Iron Maiden
65. Motorhead
66. Blue Oyster Cult
67. Ashford and Simpson
68. Peter and Gordon
69. Sonny and Cher
70. Jan and Dean
71. Bad Company
72. Free
73. Steve Miller Band
74. Devo
75. Los Lobos
76. Afrika Bambaataa
77. LL COOL J
78. The Penguins
79. Steppenwolf
80. The Guess Who
81. The 5th Dimension
82. Ten Years After
83. The Spencer Davis Group
84. Blind Faith
85. Derek and the Dominoes
86. The Smiths
87. Television
88. Roxy Music
89. Sonic Youth
90. Joy Division
91. New Order
92. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts
93. The Runaways

MEN

94. Ben E. King
95. Chuck Willis
96. Johnny Ace
97. Joe Tex
98. Lou Reed
99. Gram Parsons
100. Cat Stevens
101. Randy Newman
102. Steve Winwood
103. Conway Twitty
104. Chubby Checker
105. Ozzy Osbourne
106. Alice Cooper
107. Phil Collins
108. Peter Gabriel
109. Don Henley
110. Sting
111. Paul Anka
112. Neil Sedaka
113. Lionel Richie
114. Bobby Rydell
115. Richie Havens
116. Donovan
117. Fabian
118. Ringo Starr
119. Todd Rundgren
120. Lou Rawls
121. Jerry Butler
122. Phil Ochs
123. Jim Croce
124. Joe Cocker
125. John Denver
126. Bryan Adams
127. Iggy Pop
128. Tom Waits
129. Stevie Ray Vaughan
130. Harry Belafonte
131. Frank Sinatra
132. Tony Bennett
133. Dick Dale

WOMEN

134. Darlene Love
135. Dionne Warwick
136. Mary Wells
137. Patti LaBelle
138. Roberta Flack
139. Joan Baez
140. Judy Collins
141. Buffy Sainte-Marie
142. Laura Nyro
143. Donna Summer
144. Cher
145. Tina Turner
146. Carole King
147. Carly Simon
148. Marianne Faithful
149. Nico
150. The Pointer Sisters
151. Linda Ronstadt
152. Tammy Wynette
153. Dolly Parton
154. Bette Midler
155. Stevie Nicks
156. Cyndi Lauper
157. Pat Benatar
158. Whitney Houston

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 04.21.10 @ 09:21am


Great article, i

hope can know much information About it!

Posted by jordan shoes on Wednesday, 04.21.10 @ 09:34am


Tom Jones
Neil Diamond

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 04.25.10 @ 12:21pm


How many bands can you name that had a major hit being sung by a member who was not an original member of the group and when the group was inducted, the singer who sung the major hit wasn't included as an inductee?

I don't know!

THOSE INDUCTED:

01. Timothy B. Schmidt: Inducted with the Eagles in 1997. He was with the Eagles for only 17 years when they were inducted. He sang the Eagles hit, "I Can't Tell You Why" from 1980 and "Love Will Keep Us Alive" from 1994.

02. Sammy Hagar: Inducted with Van Halen in 2007. He was with Van Halen for 22 years when they got inducted. He sang many of Van Halen's hits.

WILL THEY BE INDUCTED?-YES!:

01. J.T. Taylor: Kool & the Gang first charted in 1969. J.T. Taylor joined the group in 1978 and sang lead on all the groups hits from that point on, which included Celebration, Too Hot, Get Down On It, Cherish, Joanna and others. It's been over 25 years since he joined the group.

02. J.D. Nicholas: After Lionel Richie left the Commodores in 1981, The Commodores released 3 more studio albums between 1983 and 1987 and they scored 8 more hits with drummer Walter Clyde Orange singing lead along with Lionel Richie's replacement J.D. Nicholas. Their biggest hit was "Nightshift" in 1985. J.D. Nicholas was from the group Heatwave. Nicholas was with the Commodores for 5 years and then they stopped producing albums.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 04.25.10 @ 14:25pm


An email I received from the president of the Rock Hall museum Terry Stewart; a nominating and voting committee member in regards to my question about how they determine which members of a band is inducted:

Once an artist (group) is selected for induction, a separate committee oversees who is inducted in the group. Relevant factors are who started the group and who played on the songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group. To speculate about this relative to Chicago at this point is just not possible.

Terry Stewart
President

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 05.4.10 @ 08:53am


This is my list for who should really be inducted in 2014. Not just because of their popularity but because of how they've projected themselves to the world over the past 20-30 incredible years. And my list will start from the very best to the very worst. Trust me, I know what good music is, my parents have just about every single rock band's album's in the world so don't get scared when you see this list. I know what I'm talking about:)

1. Green Day
2. Coldplay
3. Nine Inch Nails
4. Linkin Park
5. Breaking Benjamin
6. Nickelback
7. Bullet For My Valentine
8. Avenged Sevenfold
9. Evanescence
10.Metallica
11.Tesla
12.Saliva
13.Rage Against The Machine
14.The Verve
15.Muse
16.Alice In Chains
17.Alterbridge
18.Bon Jovi
19.Buckcherry
20.Def Leppard
21.Cavo
22.Foreigner
23.Garbage
24.Hoobastank
25.Journey
26.Keane
27.Kid Rock
28.Oasis
29.Our Lady Peace
30.Puddle Of Mudd
31.Seether
32.Sick Puppies
33.Skillet
34.Three Days Grace
35.Thriving Ivory
36.Godsmack
37.The Goo-Goo Dolls
38.System Of A Down
39.Papa Roach
40.Beastie Boys
41.Crossfade
42.Disturbed
43.Guns N Roses
44.Hinder
45.Lifehouse
46.Limp Biskit
47.Sixx AM
48.Third Eye Blind
50.Atreyu

If you don't like my beautiful list, please don't comment me back and start talking shit because trust me, I'm not having it. And also, if you're disagreeing with me when I put Green Day for number one, if you have a problem, take it out with me because I know for a fact that Green Day WILL be inducted no matter what any one of you haters have to say. I'm sure the critics would agree with my list too.

Posted by brittany on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 18:48pm


Brittany,

Firstly, Metallica is already in. Secondly, a number of these "artists" won't be eligible in 2014. Thirdly, I don't see how this list is relevant to this particular page.

Posted by Chalkie on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 19:05pm


brittany...did you take your meds this morning, by chance...???? First and foremost...if you tell people not to respond to your silly list if they don't like it because "you won't have it", then you can rest assured that there are people who frequent this site who are more than up to the challenge. Now, about your list...gee, why don't we just induct everyone who's ever made a record...???? Spouting a bunch of artists is one thing (and not very interesting), giving detailed analysis as to why thet should be is something else...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 20:15pm


By the way...back in the day we had a name for groups like Green Day....

"Garage Band"!!!!

'Nuff said...!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 20:35pm


I actually think Green Day have a very good shot at being inducted when they become eligible, as do maybe 2,3 or 4 other bands you listed Brittany but yeah, Chalkie's right, many of those bands aren't eligible in 2014 and Gitarzan's right about you not taking your meds, relax!!

Posted by Stefan on Friday, 05.7.10 @ 03:42am


THE GREATEST VILLAINS IN ROCK HISTORY

10. Ahmet Ertegun
Apparently Everybody Makes Mistakes?
Inducted into his own Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Percy Sledge controversy, current controversies with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame nominating and induction process originate with him

9. Neil Bogart
The Fraud
Founder of drugged drenched Casablanca Record label, ran Cameo-Parkway Records which was shut down for stock fraud and worst of all was a key player in the rise of "bubblegum" music

8. Suge Knight
The Black Man's Burden
Threatened artists with violence if they disobeyed his wishes, tyrannical controlled his artists' careers, possibly responsible for the death of Hip-Hop superstar Tupac Shakur

7. Ed Sullivan
The Grudge
Banned Bo Diddley from his show for not performing the song he was "supposed to," Turned off the microphone for Buddy Holly's electric guitar/purposefully mispronounced the group's name as "Buddy Hollered & The Picketts, banned The Rolling Stones and The Doors for not obeying his political correctness, Ran his show like an evil dictator

6. Lou Pearlman
The King of Boy Bands
Convicted of conspiracy and money laundering, perpetrator of one of the longest and largest Ponzi schemes in American History. However, we can forgive him for that, what we can't forgive him for his making NSYNC and The Backstreet Boys famous

5. Dick Clark
America's Oldest Dirt Bag
Enriching his wallet while thriving on artist's talent with American Bandstand, Where the Action Is, etc, conflict of interest, greedy crook whilst masquerading as a good guy

4. Allen Klein
The Biggest Bastard in the Valley
Founded scandal-clad Cameo-Parkway, slowly took control of all aspect's of Sam Cooke's career, living off the artist, controversies with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, lived by the following quote he kept on his desk: "Though I walk in the shadow of the valley of evil, I have no fear as I am the biggest bastard in the valley"

3. Dave Marsh
The Elitist
Possibly single-handedly responsible for many of the problems plaguing the controversial Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, much despised by the general public for his elitist, snobbish and personal bias against certain musical artists, this man is nothing more than an ugly toad with a superiority complex

2. Jann Wenner
The Dictator
One could write a book about everything bad Jann Wenner has created, beginning with inducting himself into his own Hall of Fame, running the train wreck known as the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame institution debacle as to impress the most treacherous among us, Mr. Wenner also runs with fascistic indignity a filthy publication known as Rolling Stone Magazine, believing his opinion to be God's word he slanders musical artists he dislikes whilst upping his own favorite artists to saint-like status, the denial of progressive rock, the Dave Clark Five controversy are only a select few spectacles this up-himself monster has cooked up

1. "Colonel" Tom Parker
The Devil
Long before any of the above where out staining the world with their villainous deeds, this loathsome, vile and despicable carrion and self-appointed "Colonel" ran Elvis Presley's career like the illusionary military commander he thought he was, lived off of Presley's talent, stealing a vast amount of his money, he defined the role of the exploitive rock manager. Ruined an entire decade of the greatest, most talented and most influential Rock & Roll performer of all time by steering him away from music and making him much less of a success than he could have been for the sole purpose of enriching his own selfish greed. May you burn in Hell Parker!

Posted by Van Hoorn on Sunday, 05.9.10 @ 15:46pm


The Greatest Villains in Rock History was one of the greatest things I've ever read here. Thanks Van Hoorn!

Posted by Jonny on Sunday, 05.9.10 @ 17:44pm


wheres the moody blues

Posted by tim james on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 21:20pm


For those of you who are unfamiliar with Tom Dowd, here's a bio of him from digitaldreamdoor, I can't understand why the man hasn't been inducted in the non-performer yet

Tom Dowd
The single most important engineer in rock history, vital in advancing recording techniques including the advent of stereo multi-track recording, of which he was a pioneer. One of the nicest human beings who ever graced rock 'n' roll recently passed on rendering any honor to him here posthumous, which is an absolute disgrace considering he should've been inducted a quarter century ago. If they finally put him in there'd be a line of superstar artists a mile long wanting to give the induction speech for him.

Qualifications: 10, The Immortals

Posted by Stefan on Saturday, 05.15.10 @ 06:51am


Great list of villains... one note though... Allen Klein did not found Cameo-Parkway records. That was Bernie Lowe. Allen Klein took over the reins in the late 60s' from (I believe) Al Rosenthal, who took over from Bernie Lowe. Klein's also the reason why some Rolling Stones' reissues on CD sound like absolute crap... bad reproduction values all around.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 05.22.10 @ 00:27am


I really enjoyed this post, especially the “examples in this post” portion which made it really easy for me to SEE what you were talking about without even having to leave the article. Thanks

Posted by Police Sunglass on Saturday, 05.22.10 @ 12:35pm


How come people who voted for also voted for was discontinued on all the artists pages on this site?

Posted by Roy on Friday, 07.9.10 @ 18:54pm


DEF LEPPARD, DEF LEPPARD PLEASE inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Posted by Edison on Friday, 07.16.10 @ 10:29am


"DEF LEPPARD, DEF LEPPARD PLEASE inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame "


For the love of God, no!

I'm old enough to remember that they sucked the first time around. The last thing the world needs is any sort of Def Leppard inspired nostalgia.

Posted by Ralph on Friday, 07.16.10 @ 11:13am


I like that he says "broadly define as rock and roll"- not that it's anything new, but it's not just about rock and roll, as some tend to think.

As always, commercial success does not dictate the process. Those inductees who have had a lot of commercial success are not Hall of Famers for that reason. Yet, many visitors to this site still go on, "Oh, such-and-such has this many gold records, hits, etc."- not what it's about.

And, it's no coincidence that most people complaining about the HOF usually are acts who are not part of it, or fans of those who are not part of it.

Posted by JR on Friday, 07.16.10 @ 16:03pm


Well the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame put out a list of the Top 200 albums OF ALL TIME and Def Leppard had 2 albums in the the Top 100

New Wave of British Heavy Metal pioneers and pretty much the originators of Pop Metal; don't confuse early Def Leppard (the first three albums and the b-sides album Retroactive) with all that fluffy hair make up driven nonsense of the 80's, sure Hysteria was incredibly popular and led to a lot of crappy imitators, but the album was certainly influential and highly critically regarded

Posted by Doug on Saturday, 07.17.10 @ 08:42am


I repeat: Only 20th Century Artists Should Be Inducted Into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 07.17.10 @ 09:44am


I repeat: Only 20th Century Artists Should Be Inducted Into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame!

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 07.17.10 @ 09:44am
I think they can not get in for 20 years or is it 25 years .? Any who it won't happen for 10 more ears. I mean years. If I am correct. I am sure others hear know more about it than me

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 07.17.10 @ 09:59am


From the most recent article posted: "and have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence. We shall consider factors such as an artist’s musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification for induction."

Therein lies the rub. Who gets to define "unquestionable musical excellence"? It only serves to promulgate the elitism of the NomCom and give credibility to any arguments involving echoes of "great unwashed masses", which has always struck a very wrong chord with me. Rock'n'roll was the music that tore down the social barriers that defined "great unwashed" with racial and generational parameters, and celebrated egalitarian thought, both in the high ranks of society, and in the daily walk of life (which has been a large part of my support for Ringo Starr's solo induction). And now ironically, it has erected new barriers with racial and generational parameters, only in a somewhat reverse manner.

And yet, in a similarly quasi-ironic twist, that same standard of "unquestionable music excellence" also gives new life and new hope to a lot of artists who had track records of consistent output of rock'n'roll, but may not have been all that innovative or influential. If nothing else, you can always claim "musical excellence" as justification for inducting an artist. It's a standard that is built with the immeasurable capability to be abused, but by that same token, is the last vestige of hope for acts that John Q. Public is crying out to have inducted.

In the end, I think it answers questions, but leaves us with just as many more. It may or may not be a good thing.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 07.17.10 @ 22:47pm


well Philip
I have always been a big YES on Ringo. As I have mentioned many times be 4-- Ringo is Rock and Paul is POP..
Rock ON!!

Posted by mrxys on Saturday, 07.17.10 @ 22:54pm


Terry Stewart has confirmed it!:

There are no conspiracies and no one has veto power.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 07.19.10 @ 12:01pm


Question:

When an artist does not attend his or her induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, does their Rock Hall trophy get mailed to them or their management?

Thank you

It depends on the individual case. If the inductee or family member or other representative requests shipment, we will do so. Thanks for your question and thanks for thinking of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.

Meredith E. Rutledge
Assistant Curator
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum
1100 Rock and Roll Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44114
www.rockhall.com

Sometimes it's to your advantage for people to think you're crazy.

-- Thelonious Monk

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:32 PM
To: Sharon Uhl; Meredith Rutledge
Subject: Inductees who don't attend and don't send anyone to collect

Posted by Roy on Monday, 07.19.10 @ 15:09pm


I hope the The MIRACLES are under serious consideration for ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME Induction. They deserve it more than HALF of the artists that are in there.....and it's a TRAVESTY that they have been ignored all of these years !!


It’s a SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS when, on Motown’s 50TH ANNIVERSARY, THE LABEL’S FIRST GROUP and it's FIRST and most IMPORTANT recording act CAN’T GET INDUCTED into the RRHOF,DUE TO POLITICS and STUPIDITY, while dozens of less-deserving acts with FAR FEWER HITS, and far less influential,are getting inducted every year. There’s NO WAY that you can convince me that ONE-HIT WONDER PERCY SLEDGE, THE RONETTES (8 HITS) , AND GRANDMASTER FLASH (??!!) DESERVE INDUCTION over the MIRACLES .The MIRACLES were THE ONE ACT WHOSE SUCCESS OPENED THE DOORS for EVERY MOTOWN ACT THAT FOLLOWED THEM….With over 50 CHART HITS, 4 songs in the GRAMMY HALL OF FAME , 3 SONGS in ROLLING STONE’S LIST OF THE 500 GREATEST SONGS OF ALL TIME,AND EVEN 3 songs in the Rock and Roll Hall’s OWN list of the 500 SONGS THAT HELPED SHAPE ROCK AND ROLL,Inductees into the DOO WOP HALL OF FAME, THE VOCAL GROUP HALL OF FAME,…and even the HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME, where they just got their star this past March 20th, THE MIRACLES ARE AMONG THE BEST OF THE BEST . They are by NO MEANS “sidemen” or “backups”!! Even WITHOUT SMOKEY, they had 9 charting singles,a Platinum Album (1976's”City of Angels”, a Gold single, “Do It Baby”, and and a multi-million- selling #1 Platinum single ( Love Machine) Smokey hasn’t had a Platinum album OR a #1 Pop Hit as a solo artist… but The MIRACLES HAVE HAD BOTH !!! They are also far and away THE MOST COVERED MOTOWN ACT OF ALL TIME… with more than 50 of their songs covered by literally HUNDREDs of other acts..in every different musical genre: POP, SOUL, COUNTRY, REGGAE, MOR, JAZZ, …BLUEGRASS, EVEN RAP & HIP-HOP !!! They were JOHN LENNON’S favorite group: several Beatles songs, such as “Ask Me Why” and “Sexy Sadie”, were DIRECTLY INFLUENTED by Miracles songs…and that’s a fact you can CHECK !! Not only that , but The MIRACLES were the ONLY Motown group during the sixties that wrote their OWN MATERIAL…. ALL OF THEM…NOT JUST SMOKEY !! The Temptations didn’t, The Supremes didn’t , nor did the Four Tops… But THE MIRACLES DID . But, those other acts get inducted… while The Miracles DON’T ?? What distorted logic dictated THAT ? Do you really mean to tell me that THE MIRACLES were good enough to have given a ROYAL COMMAND PERFORMANCE for QUEEN ELIZABETH,which they did in 1968, but not good enough for Induction ??

The MIRACLES' "influence" factor is "through the ROOF"! The number of artists that have covered their songs proves it.

The RRHOF’S Ill- advised attempt to honor Smokey apart from his group, while other artists, such as CURTIS MAYFIELD, MICHAEL JACKSON, and ERIC CLAPTON ,WERE HONORED SEPARATELY, and WITH THEIR GROUPS , smacks of unfairness .Even Motown founder BERRY GORDY said… at the groups’ HWOF induction on 3/20/09 …”Without THE MIRACLES. Motown would NOT be the Motown it is today”
He ought to KNOW.

There are many artists that have been inducted into the RRHOF that haven't accomplished HALF AS MUCH ..... and some that haven't written so much as a SINGLE LYRIC OF MUSIC !!! The MIRACLES have also influnced and set the standards for literally SCORES of groups and artists that have followed them , from the early 1960's ,up until this very day. Every first tenor- led group that has come since , including THE TEMPTATIONS , owes them a great debt . Based on these facts , I believe that THE MIRACLES should have not only been inducted , they should have been among the FIRST artists inducted . It doesn't take a "fan" or an "expert" to see THAT !! What is The MIRACLES' contribution to having had a " significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll " ? Simply this : THEY STARTED AND OPENED THE FLOODGATES TO THE ENTIRE MOTOWN PHENOMONON !!!

Posted by Bill G. on Wednesday, 07.21.10 @ 11:25am


It was grossly UNFAIR for the RRHOF to induct only Smokey 23 years ago, and totally ignore BOBBY ROGERS, CLAUDETTE ROBINSON, PETE MOORE, the late RONNIE WHITE,MARV TARPLIN, and BILLY GRIFFIN...not even NOMINATING them...not even ONCE in the ensuing years.These people are now in their 70's!!! I say INDUCT THE MIRACLES...NOW... while they're still alive to share the honor !!!

Posted by Bill G. on Wednesday, 07.21.10 @ 11:31am


If anyone in the RRHOF Nominating Committee is reading this, please go to this site:


http://www.amazon.com/tag/rhythm%20and%20blues/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx96T5CZYCDQKK&cdThread=Tx2IUOLQ1YJKED9

Posted by Bill G. on Wednesday, 07.21.10 @ 14:29pm


I do think Innovation, Influence and Impact/Perpetuation should be the criteria. For example: Oasis, probably my favorite band growing up and I still have a soft spot for them now. There were no obvious innovations in their music. However, since they were the people's band and the "working class lads" of the UK you can bet they caused a lot of kids to pick up guitars (I believe Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys has been quoted as saying this happened to him when he heard "Definitely Maybe.") They also appear to have influenced lots of the indie bands around today, so they have the influence. Impact: Well, they did help keep straight-ahead, no-frills rock in the public conscience in their home country, and also in the UK were partially responsible for returning guitar music to the top of the charts. Based on all of this I think they should be inducted when the time comes. Let's also look at Alice in Chains. They don't sound like anything else I've heard, and mixing metal and post-punk could very well be innovative (though apparently other Seattle bands were doing that first.) They were also one of the first alt-metal bands, either them or Faith No More. So the innovation might be there. Influential is an understatement, considering all the post-grunge bands who have copied them (yes they copied Pearl Jam as well.) Perpetuation: They did play a part in putting Seattle on the musical map, as "Man in the Box" was the first significant hit any of the Seattle bands had, and they were the first ones to have a gold album. So based on this they definitely have the credentials to be inducted.

That is the criteria I use for determining if someone's worthy, and as far as sales is concerned, it should only mean anything if: a) Sales and perpetuation/impact go hand in hand for an artist, or b) An artist sets new/a new sales record(s) or c) Their popularity is so over the top, head and shoulders above almost everyone else and sustained for more than just a few years (partly what got Elton John in) that it's difficult to ignore. The three I's don't have to go together, as a big enough amount of Influence can make up for a lack of obvious Innovation (see the Sex Pistols, AC/DC and Pearl Jam to name a few), and if an Artist does something very innovative then they have a very strong case for induction regardless of the rest of their credentials, if not being automatic inductions in my mind. I try not to let personal taste decide things, but my likes do interfere at times. Feedback on these ideas is of course appreciated.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 07.30.10 @ 20:45pm


We would like to know how to go about getting one of America's greatest groups "Chicago" on the ballot for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. They are still rockin' after all these years, yet people with less talent seemed to have been voted-in. We have a tremendous facebook following that agree with us. If facebook can get Betty White to appear on SNL, then I see no problem w/Chicago. I believe they were nominated one year, but never elected to the R & R Hall of Fame. Please let me know what we can do to get the ball "Rolling" with this endeavor! Thanks! -Dottie, a/k/a Dorothy DeLullo DeCaro.

Posted by Dorothy DeCaro on Tuesday, 08.3.10 @ 09:43am


My late husband, Dennis Yost of Dennis Yost and The Classics IV, were given credit for creating the "Southern Soft Rock" sound, that was and still is so popular. I would like to suggest you look at and listen to Dennis' and Classics IV's body of work and think about considering this innovative group of great writers and Dennis' unique haunting(described as a "singer's singer, who sings with a tear)in his voice. I pray you will consider him for the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.
Thanking you in advance,
Mrs. Dennis (Linda)Yost

Posted by Linda Yost on Friday, 08.27.10 @ 20:29pm


Terry Stewart has confirmed it!:

There are no conspiracies and no one has veto power.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 09.5.10 @ 03:19am


I don't think anyone here is seriously suggesting conspiracy, Roy. Just a certain level of swell-headed elitism at worst, but not conspiracy.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 09.5.10 @ 04:03am


In regard's to Brittany's list way back:

1. Green Day
2. Coldplay
3. Nine Inch Nails
4. Linkin Park
5. Breaking Benjamin
6. Nickelback
7. Bullet For My Valentine
8. Avenged Sevenfold
9. Evanescence
10.Metallica
11.Tesla
12.Saliva
13.Rage Against The Machine
14.The Verve
15.Muse
16.Alice In Chains
17.Alterbridge
18.Bon Jovi
19.Buckcherry
20.Def Leppard
21.Cavo
22.Foreigner
23.Garbage
24.Hoobastank
25.Journey
26.Keane
27.Kid Rock
28.Oasis
29.Our Lady Peace
30.Puddle Of Mudd
31.Seether
32.Sick Puppies
33.Skillet
34.Three Days Grace
35.Thriving Ivory
36.Godsmack
37.The Goo-Goo Dolls
38.System Of A Down
39.Papa Roach
40.Beastie Boys
41.Crossfade
42.Disturbed
43.Guns N Roses
44.Hinder
45.Lifehouse
46.Limp Biskit
47.Sixx AM
48.Third Eye Blind
50.Atreyu

Yes: Nine Inch Nails, Alice in Chains, Green Day, Beastie Boys (I would say yes to Metallica but they're already in.)

Leaning yes: Def Leppard, Rage Against the Machine, Oasis.

Maybe: Journey, System of A Down, The Verve.

No: All the rest (you put on Sixx AM but not Motley Crue?)

Locks: NIN, Green Day, GNR, Beastie Boys.

Most likely will be inducted: RATM, Oasis.

Possibly: Alice in Chains, SOAD, DL, Coldplay.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 09.13.10 @ 10:37am


I think it should be base on the sound of the voice, quality of work and influence on other artists. That's why I will never understand why Tammi Terrell isn't in the hall. There are 3 women who are in who could outsing her and her influence on marivn gaye music is undeniable. If motown was a movement in music and the history of music. Why isn't one of it's best in the hall.

Posted by oldheadque on Thursday, 09.23.10 @ 10:48am


I think as the years go by and the older generation passes away, all artists from the 1950s nominated for the Rock Hall will all eventually be inducted in the early influence category. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, artists from the 60s will be inducted in the early influence category, or maybe not. Maybe the Rock Hall nominating committee will make it a requirement to have one or two artists from the 50s as nominees on the ballot every year and voters have to vote for one of them.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.4.10 @ 08:52am


I think as the years go by and the older generation passes away, all artists from the 1950s nominated for the Rock Hall will all eventually be inducted in the early influence category. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, artists from the 60s will be inducted in the early influence category, or maybe not. Maybe the Rock Hall nominating committee will make it a requirement to have one or two artists from the 50s as nominees on the ballot every year and voters have to vote for one of them.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.4.10 @ 08:52am
--------------------------------------------------
I never thought of it that way. I don't necessarily care for the idea that you HAVE to vote for someone from the past, as I think it would be ridiculous to have voters in 2030 trying to vote every act from 1965 in. Still though, I can see a future where acts from the early rock years become early influences to generations far removed from now.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 10.4.10 @ 16:38pm


Only 20th century artists should be inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, ever!

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.11.10 @ 16:56pm


You're wrong. End of discussion.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 10.16.10 @ 13:30pm


Little Anthony & The Imperials are already inducted (2009).

Posted by Bill G. on Tuesday, 10.19.10 @ 21:22pm


I hope Janet gets inducted!

She should have been nominated for 2011. To commemorate the 25th year of control.

Madonna is already in so, duh, Janet should be next.

Posted by abcd on Monday, 10.25.10 @ 02:38am


24 YEARS and COUNTING.... and STILL no INDUCTION or even a nomination for THE MIRACLES....with NO explanation of ANY KIND from The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Committee.

Posted by Bill G. on Tuesday, 11.16.10 @ 21:13pm


Only 20th century artists should be inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, ever!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 11.19.10 @ 19:29pm


Whats wrong with some of the great acts from the 21st century? There are many!

Posted by Gassman on Friday, 11.19.10 @ 22:46pm


Roy's a fake (posting all these lists is really pretentious) and a moron. He seems to believe that every 50's-70's act should be inducted; enough said.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 11.21.10 @ 08:23am


Yes, because Sonny & Cher are better than Interpol.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 11.21.10 @ 09:49am


No, this is how Roy really is. He wants it to be a 20th Century Encyclopedia of Music with walls. Sometimes, he comes across something good though.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 11.21.10 @ 17:22pm


http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=238

Sampson is the name of the person who writes the critiques of artists on Digital Dream Door and the qualifications rating of their chances for entering the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, but he does not allow anyone to send him private messages on DDD. That`s his page above.

QUALIFICATIONS (on a scale of 1-10)
1 - Non-existant
2 - Mostly Insignificant
3 - Recognizable, But Minor Credentials
4 - Modest Accomplishments
5 - Worth Examining, But Will Often Fall Short
6 - Strong Case To Be Made
7 - Solid Choice
8 - Unquestioned Credentials
9 - Dominant Artist
10 - The Immortals

Candidates A-C | Candidates C-H | Candidates H-M | Candidates M-S | Candidates S-Z

50 Unlikely Candidates | Sidemen Candidates | Early Influences
Outside Genre Possibilities | Non-Performers | 2010 Nominees

DDD does not have every single artist who is not in the rock hall listed and rated on their site. Just like FRL doesn't.

Digital Dream Door is based out of Clearwater, Florida

Posted by Roy on Monday, 11.29.10 @ 04:22am


Influence via Innovation.

Posted by Chalkie on Monday, 11.29.10 @ 21:35pm


"Influence via Innovation." - Chalkie

I wouldn't say the two are always mutually exclusive, though I could be wrong. It is possible for one to be Innovative and still have little to no Influence (It's possible that I could come with a couple of examples). You also have bands like Green Day who didn't innovate anything and are still quite influential. How innovative Nirvana was has been debated (I'd say they were, to some degree) but they were certainly influential, nobody's tried to deny that. You and I both think Coldplay hasn't innovated anything yet (though they could still), yet AllMusic lists a lot of followers for them. Same goes for Muse, even though they merely come across to me as Radiohead wannabes.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 11.30.10 @ 11:05am


Ok I'm gonna go out a wind and say I am a HUGS music fan and more in particular a rock and metal fan. I'm really glad to see that Alice cooper and Neil Diamond made it this year. Well deserved guys, Well deserved. Now to really push upno the metal side They really need to push for and add next year into the induction ceremony Judas Preist. I mean just like sabbth in the early 70's they truely pioneered the sound of metal in the late 70's. This is my call to get them inducted next year. JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS, JUDAS. Come on dont make beg man.

Posted by Cr8zyTimmy on Tuesday, 12.21.10 @ 09:22am


"Ok I'm gonna go out a wind and say I am a HUGS music fan"

Apparently you're not a "HUGS" spelling and grammar fan.

Posted by Chalkie on Tuesday, 12.21.10 @ 10:27am


I really think you guys should consider, all of the successful albums and songs that a singer or band has done!!! I mean Hall and Oates is a band that's been around over 40 years now, they're true strength and they're hard work deserves to be credited at the rock and roll hall of fame to have thier names inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame! Daryl Hall and John Oates worked and continue to work very hard for their success to this day!! I really think it's overdue and time for them to please get their names honored into the rock and roll hall of fame!!

Posted by Lea on Thursday, 01.13.11 @ 17:50pm


I've been a HUGE fan of Bobby Rydell's since the early 60s!!! His music has spanned 5 decades!!! I first heard Bobby on the radio & started buying his 45s & albums... I've seen him @ R&R Shows,on T.V. shows, including Dick Clark's American Bandstand, The Ed Sullivan Show, Red Skelton Show, Shindig & many more variety shows!!! I adored him in the film "Bye Bye Birdie"!!! He continues to WOW & FILL audiences with his charismatic personality, still amazing vocals, comedy & dancing styles!!! He even plays the drums!!! Bobby is the consumate performer... I had the priviledge of meeting Bobby in person in the early days & last October when he was performing with The Golden Boys... He's remained humble, funny & kind to his fans... I nominate Bobby Rydell as a inductee to The R&R Hall Of Fame because he's not only sustained an on-going career but also because he's paid his dues & deserves to be rewarded for the "fruits of his labor"!!! He's also a "Mensch"!!! "We Got Love" for Bobby!!! With Sincere Admiration & Affection, Helene Hill

Posted by Helene Hill on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 13:27pm


I think as the older generation on the Rock Hall committee gets older or passes on, all the remaining artists from the 50s will be inducted in the Early Influence category because the younger voters don't know who they are, or don't appreciate, or never listened to their music. The Rock Hall will have no choice but to forget about nominating 50s artists in the main performers category, and just inducting them in the Early Influence category.

She would have been inducted in the main performers category if the Rock Hall had been inducting more than 5 artists that year. I wonder how many votes she actually got. Why couldn't they have just kept on nominating her every year until she got in. Does her induction in the early influence category after being nominated in the main performers category, make her induction any less important? Is she any less significant? Is she any less of an inductee? Is anyone who wanted her in the Rock Hall angry because she is in the Rock Hall but not in the category they wanted her to be inducted in?

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.27.11 @ 15:21pm


http://www.songhall.org/forms/shof_membership.pdf

You can vote on who gets inducted into The Songwriters Hall Of Fame every year. If you are not a member of the music industry, you only qualify for Lifetime Membership, which will cost you $1000.00.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 01.31.11 @ 08:55am


based on the criteria noted above for induction, how is it possible the j geils band has not yer been inducted? their sound is unique, they are widely acclaimed as an amazing live act, thier music combined r& b, rock and pop. hard to believe leon russell got in before them, its a travesty they have yet to be inducted!

Posted by lee smith on Saturday, 02.12.11 @ 09:43am


"based on the criteria noted above for induction, how is it possible the j geils band has not yer been inducted?" - lee smith

First of all, if you're referring to the criteria at the top of the page, it might be slightly misleading as the Rock Hall has the following to say on eligibility for their "exclusive club" on their website:

"To be eligible for induction as an artist (as a performer, composer, or musician) into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the artist must have released a record, in the generally accepted sense of that phrase, at least 25 years prior to the year of induction; and have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence.

We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction."
http://rockhall.com/inductees/induction-process/

So that's the catch, lee, who decides on what constitutes "musical excellence?"

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 02.22.11 @ 09:23am


Why doesnt the Rock Hall induct artists in the Sideman category, the Early Influence category and the Non-Performers category every single year

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 03.10.11 @ 08:54am


Why doesnt the Rock Hall induct artists in the Sideman category, the Early Influence category and the Non-Performers category every single year

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 03.10.11 @ 08:54am


I have no idea Roy, but it certainly is frustrating, I would much prefer it if there were inductions for all three categories every year and each year they kept a consistent # of inductees for each respective category. They've really done a bad job with the sideman and early influence categories recently

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 03.10.11 @ 11:04am


I mean seriously, after 2000, only one early influence inductee who shouldn't have even been in the early influence category and only one sideman inductee. The sidemen category has maybe been a little consistent but there are still some true legends who haven't been recognized yet.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 03.10.11 @ 11:08am


Woops, ignore the "only one sidemen inductee" part. My fingers went out of control LOL

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 03.10.11 @ 11:09am


All of these would make good sidemen inductees:

The Andantes
Carmine Appice
Mickey "Guitar" Baker
Jeff "Skunk" Baxter
The Blossoms
Glen Campbell (was a member of the Wrecking Crew)
Del Casher
Jesse Ed Davis
Tom Dowd
Nicky Hopkins
The Jordanaires
Carol Kaye
The Memphis Horns
Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section
Jimmy Nolen
Maceo Parker
Bernard Purdie
Rob Sabino
Louis Shelton
Leland Sklar
The Sweet Inspirations

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 03.10.11 @ 11:20am


Correction: Tom Dowd shouldn't be on that list, I was thinking of Non-Performer candidates when I wrote his name (Which should be in as already, along with other no-brainers like Robert Moog and Wolfman Jack just to name a few).

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 03.11.11 @ 04:17am


"possibly responsible for the death of Hip-Hop superstar Tupac Shakur"

I know this bit on Suge Knight was posted long ago, but I wanted to add: Possibly responsible for the death of Notorious B.I.G. as well (watch the Behind the Music; an LAPD detective uncovered plenty of coincidences but wasn't allowed to pursue them).

Posted by Sam on Monday, 03.21.11 @ 13:21pm


I like to read your blog, do you think that flatpress is better for blogging than blogengine cms ?

Posted by stegna kwatery on Thursday, 03.24.11 @ 06:12am


The person(s) on the nominating committee who's making the case for LL cool J...should be Pres. Obama's 2012 campaign manager.

Posted by kel on Thursday, 03.24.11 @ 20:00pm


People like you who voted Yes for ??? also voted Yes for:

IT'S BACK ON ALL THE ARTISTS' PAGES

Posted by Roy on Friday, 03.25.11 @ 21:27pm


The Keltner analysis is sometimes used to judge whether or not an act is deserving of the Hall of Fame. For those unfamiliar with it, it's a series of questions, the answers to which supposedly decide whether the artist being analyzed is worthy:

1. Was/were ___ (the artist being analyzed) ever regarded as the best artist in rock music?
2. Was/were ___ ever the best artist in rock music in ___'s genre?
3. Was/were ___ ever considered the best at their instruments?
4. Did ___ have an impact on a number of other artists?
5. Was/were ___ good enough that they could play regularly after passing their prime?
6. Is/are ___ the very best artist in history not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Is/are most artists who have a comparable history and impact in the Hall of Fame?
8. Is there any evidence to suggest that ___ was/were significantly better or worse than is suggested by statistical records?
9. Is/are ___ the best artist in ___'s genre that is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
10. How many #1 singles gold records did ___ have? Did ___ ever win a Grammy Award? If not, how many times was/were ___ nominated?
11. How many Grammy level songs/albums did ___ have?
12. If ___ were the best artist at a concert, would it be likely that the concert would rock?
13. What impact did ___ have on rock history?
14. Did ___ uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character?

-------------------------------------------

And NOW for the interesting part, why I consider the above Keltner analysis system to be an inadequate, horribly flawed, semi-worthless and inaccurate system of measuring anything. You'll all excuse me while I rip the Keltner analysis apart:

First off, I have no problem with points 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 13. It's most of the other points that throw the Keltner analysis' worth out the window. For instance:

#3: If one were to follow this point, it would mean no punk whatsoever in the Hall. Might as well throw out the Ramones/Clash/Sex Pistols then. An absolutely ridiculous statement!

#5: What exactly does this even mean? Anybody can play past their prime.

#6: Way too general of a question. Besides, based on who the Hall has already inducted, it's clear they're not reserving it for "the best of the best."

#8: This question doesn't say much, at all.

#10: Why the Hell should the Grammys have any sort of influence on the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame? This question suggests that an artist should be considered just because they won a Grammy. Besides, the Grammys, who needs 'em.

#11: Sorry, but what the f*ck constitutes a "Grammy-level song?" And who is to judge? Those who give out Grammy Awards? It is ridiculous to suggest that the Grammys should heavily influence the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. #10 & 11 basically state that an artist who hasn't been honored at the Grammys is somehow less important.

#12: Why exactly should a concert "rock" in order for an artist to be considered? And what exactly does this even mean? Shouldn't being a good live act be enough? Does one even have to be a good live act? Besides, the Hall clearly doesn't care whether an artist can "rock" at a concert based on some acts they've inducted.

#14: Along with the Grammy-rubbish this is the dumbest question on the Keltner analysis. Sportsmanship? Ethics? Was Jim Morrison upholding ethics when he got naked on stage? Was Elvis Presley upholding ethics of the time with his hip gyration? Were the Rolling Stones trying hard not to offend anybody when they released an album with the word "Satanic" in the title? Were the Who upholding sportsmanship when they smashed their instruments on stage? Hell, has heavy metal, hard rock or punk ever attempted to stroke the ego of the status quo? What the Hell would the Hall look like if they followed this question? Michael Bolton, Barbra Streisand and Celine Dion would get in first ballot.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 04.9.11 @ 06:39am


* slow clap *

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 04.9.11 @ 06:52am


* slow clap *

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 04.9.11 @ 06:52am

Thanks, Darin. I'm glad at least someone bothered reading what I wrote.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 04.20.11 @ 05:56am


The Rock Hall has started looking more and more like the Songwriters Hall in recent years with left field inductees like Leonard Cohen, Bobby Womack, Jimmy Cliff, Tom Waits, Dr. John, Leon Russell, and they will continue on this path it seems, with artists like Gram Parsons, Laura Nyro, Donovan, Randy Newman, Cat Stevens, who have been nominated in recent years, and that list they will add Jim Croce and Todd Rundgren I predict. They will continue to ignore 70's rock bands and go for solo singer/songwriters.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 04.20.11 @ 07:04am


Here's my list of who I believe should be in the hall by now (or at least, who is eligible now and should be inducted some time)
And don't worry, i'm only posting this once. I'm not like Roy with his 20th centruy enyclopedia of music.

Weird Al Yankovic (the only really notable comedy music star)
10cc (a good art rock band able to adapt mnay genres and do them well)
a-ha (an underrated new wave band)
Beastie Boys (Innovative in their mix of rap and rock)
Bjork (yes she's eligible. An amazing voice and among the biggest alternative female artists)
Blue Pyster Cult (One of the cheif 70's hard rock acts)
Brian Eno (His production work added to his influential electronic work makes him a no brainer to me)
Can (They were a huge influence on Post Punk and alternative rock in general)
Carole King (Just listen to Tapestry)
Dead Kennedys (The top of the Hardcore Punk movement)
Depeche Mode (Started off as just another Synthpop band, but became the biggest electrorock group around)
Derek And The Dominos (Clapton's greatest work)
Devo (One of the top New Wave groups)
Dick Dale (The master of the Surf Guitar and the most important instrumental surf artist outside The Ventures)
Duran Duran (The biggest Synthpop group still going)
ELO (Apart from The Moody Blues the only band to majorly use an orchestra in their music)
ELP (One of the biggest Prog Groups with arguably the greatest organ player to ever live)
Eurythmics (See Duran duran, but these were a bigger band and had a truly great singer with Annie Lennox)
Foreigner (They deserve more respect, one of the biggest arena rock acts ever)
Gary Numan (A major influence on contemporary electronic music and Industrial)
Hawkwind (The only real representation needed of the Space Rock movement)
Heaven 17 (This is a personal thing, they created what is imo the secodn greatest album ever: penthouse And Pavement)
Iron Maiden (I don't think I need to explain)
Joy Division (Big influence on alternativ eock, most the alternative bands now are copying JD)
Judas Priest (The head band of the NWOBHM)
Kraftwerk
Madness
NC5
Meat Loaf
Neu
New Order
OMD
Ozzy
Phil Collins
PiL
Roxy Music
Rush
Soft Cell
Sparks
Suicide
Talk Talk
T Rex
Television
Alan parsons Project
The Cars
The Cure
The Fall
The Damned
The Human League
The Jam
The Monkees
The Replacements
The Smiths
The Specials
The Stranglers
The Teardrop Explodes
Ultravox
Whitesnake
Yes

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 04.20.11 @ 12:45pm


I'll take you up on that. Yes:

Yes, The Specials, Beastie Boys, Eno, Hawkwind, Television, T. Rex, Suicide, The Fall, The Cure, Depeche Mode, Dick Dale, Joy Division, Rush, Talk Talk, Roxy Music, Sparks, MC5, Kraftwerk, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Gary Numan, The Jam, The Cars, Can, Dead Kennedys, New Order, The Monkees, The Smiths, ELP, The Replacements

I could go either way, though I'm leaning yes on some of these:

Madness, The Human League, The Damned, The Stranglers, Hawkwind, Carole King, Weird Al, ELO, Duran Duran, Eurythmics, PiL, Neu, Devo

No comment:

A-Ha, 10cc, Ultravox, Teardrop Explodes, Soft Cell, Heaven 17, Alan Parsons Project, OMD

No:

The rest

Posted by Sam on Friday, 04.22.11 @ 18:00pm


Actually, i didn'tt hink that list througfh. Too many on there that are just acts I like. Ah well.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 04.22.11 @ 18:11pm


Hall & Oates should be in the Hall of Fame... Just check out liveatdarylshouse.com and see how talent they are solo/together/with other artists.

Posted by Chuck DePaola on Tuesday, 05.3.11 @ 17:17pm


I would like to nominate a "non-performer". Please see this URL I've included: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/05/07/news/new_haven/doc4dc5cf658d107087356100.txt?nstrack=sid%3A1800474%7Cmet%3A300%7Ccat%3A0%7Corder%3A3

Posted by Alan Learned on Sunday, 05.8.11 @ 08:45am



Right, I didn't know where to put this, I would put it in the rap question thing but it's closed so this was the one I picked.

This is a list of artists who are in the rock and roll hall of fame yet are not rock and roll.
This is for all the idiots who think you have to rawk to be in. Here's what you would be missing.
Darlene Love
Dr John
ABBA
Jimmy Cliff
Bobby Womack
Run DMC
Little Anthony
Leonard Cohen
Madonna
Grandmaster Flash
The Ronettes
Miles Davis
The O'Jays
Percy Sledge
The Dells
Prince
Righteous Brothers
Brenda Lee
Isaac Hayes
The Flamingos
Michael Jackson
Solomon Burke
Earth Wind And Fire
The Moonglows
Staple Singers
Dusty Springfield
Curtis Mayfield
Bee Gees
Jackson Five
Joni Mitchell
Parliament Funkadelic
Gladys Knight
Little Willie John
The Shirelles
Al Green
Martha And The Vandellas
Bob Marley
Etta James
Frankie Lymon
Ruth Brown
Bobby Bland
Booker T And The MG's
Isley Brothers
Johnny Cash
Sam & Dave
The Impressions
Jimmy Reed
John Lee Hooker
Lavern Baker
The Four Tops
Otis Redding
The Temptations
The Drifters
The Supremes
Aretha Franklin
Smokey Robinson
Marvin Gaye
Jackie Wilson
Clyde Mcphatter
Sam Cooke
Ray Charles

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 06.5.11 @ 11:06am


GFW: This attempt at logic is just going to upset people.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 06.6.11 @ 09:10am


Those people would probably happily replace most the acts on their with irrelevant hard rock 70's bands who had a few hits.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 06.6.11 @ 15:02pm


"Those people would probably happily replace most the acts on their with irrelevant hard rock 70's bands who had a few hits."

:)

Posted by Sam on Monday, 06.6.11 @ 18:26pm


What i do not realize is actually how you’re not actually much more well-liked than you may be now. You’re so intelligent. You realize thus significantly relating to this subject, made me personally consider it from so many varied angles. Its like women and men aren’t fascinated unless it is one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs nice. Always maintain it up!

Posted by Black Berry on Friday, 07.8.11 @ 16:41pm


http://tomlanesblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/roy-trakin-hall-quote.html

Roy Trakin Hall Quote

RRHOF Nominating Committee member Roy Trakin makes an interesting comment regarding how the committee does its yearly meeting
" In this day of advanced technology, shouldn’t the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at least teleconference with its west coast membership when its nominating committee meets in September?"

Robert Hilburn said that he just sends in his list of nominees. That's it. No debating, just some names.
And we wonder why the whole process is so screwed up.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 08.21.11 @ 20:33pm


Obviously, as it's a museum that hinges on paid visits, the Hall of Fame definitely would want to induct big-name, successful acts- but, only if those acts indeed meet the criteria it has established. Luckily, some acts with major commercial success do fit the bill- but, others do not.

For some acts who may not be no-brainers, it's just a waiting game- look at Neil Diamond. Hang in there long enough, and an act may get inducted. But nothing's as impressive as first-year induction. Of course, some thought-of-as-no-brainers did have to wait until after their first-year of eligibility.

Posted by JR on Sunday, 08.28.11 @ 15:22pm


For those who follow this process...QUESTION: What are the chances of Mariah Carey getting inducted once she's eligible?

Posted by John on Wednesday, 09.28.11 @ 13:40pm


John, I would look to see how Whitney Houston does when she becomes eligible. That should give you an idea of Mimi's chances.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 09.28.11 @ 14:55pm


Whitney has been eligible since 2009.

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 09.28.11 @ 15:53pm


Well, there you go then. She probably won't make it in during her first 3 years of eligibility.

Maybe Celine Dion is a better fit.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 09.29.11 @ 07:05am


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame changed their Sidemen category to The Award For Musical Excellence.

That's pretty inane. I mean--aren't they ALL supposed to be getting in for musical excellence? (All categories I mean!)

Posted by Brett Alan on Monday, 10.10.11 @ 19:41pm


Recipients of this now-award are still considered inducted into the Hall, they just decided to give it a broad name because they're idiots. Similarly, non-performers are inducted as winning the "Ahmet Ertegun Award" since 2008. Even so, more non-performers were inducted in 2010 than any other year ever.

Posted by Piper on Monday, 10.10.11 @ 19:45pm


http://www.goldminemag.com/blogs/for-rock-hall-of-fame-supposed-influence-more-important-than-mass-popularity

This is on the homepage but I figured this is the most appropriate place to post it, Goldmine trashing the concept of influence.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 06:08am


Well looks like the author of the article made a mistake! Charles Brown was inducted as an Early Influence, not a Performer as the author claims!

"If he (Charles Brown) must be in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, why not in the “Early Influence” category instead of taking up a slot a Rock and Roll star – Jeff Lynne or Todd Rundgren, perhaps – could have had." - Phill Marder

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 06:16am


I usually find errors on the Rock Hall pages. I report them to the Rock Hall by email and they get fixed.

Wikipedia lists Brown in the Early Influence category

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame_inductees

I will email the Rock Hall about Charles Brown, as well as Steve Douglas, who is listed in the performers category instead of the sidemen category.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 06:21am


That was a terrible article.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 13:11pm


Agreed. For me the low point was comparing Chubby Checker and Eric B. and Rakim with each other. Why?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 13:31pm


And I'm also starting to feel sorry for Laura Nyro with all the bashing. I mean, come on, give her a break.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 13:33pm


I think the low point was sayign the velvet underground werne't as important as friggin chicago. I mean, really?

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 13:39pm


The Charles Brown and Steve Douglas entries have been fixed by the Rock Hall!!

Charles Brown - Early Influence
Steve Douglas - Sideman

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 14:47pm


Nicely done Roy!

"I think the low point was sayign the velvet underground werne't as important as friggin chicago. I mean, really?" - GFW

Wait, they said that?! I must have missed reading over that part somehow.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 14:50pm


Wow...I've read some negative comments here about bands and their relevance in the rock and roll hall of fame. I'll start with Bon Jovi...in 2011 he just finished his world tour and ranked #1 Top
Performers, sold out many if not all of their shows but is also on the top of money rankings to boot! I saw negative comments also about Styx and Reo Speedwagon they are also still putting on shows to today's date, I highly doubt they would be doing this if they weren't popular amoungst rock and rollers to still be performing. I think this site needs more educated commentors when it comes to good ole fashion Rock and Roll!

Posted by Kandace on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 16:03pm


I think the criteria is flawed here because if they were to do a poll strickly amounst roll and roll listeners and not their (Rock and Roll critera)personal bias, the listening people would vote for sure and have no disappointments for the most part if only 5 are inducted at a time in my opinion. I haven't even seen "Boston" listed... that is unbelieveable to me...What's up with that?

Posted by Kandace on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 16:51pm


I can think of at least 96 that are more worthy to get into the Hall of Fame than Bon Jovi and 105 more than Boston, Styx and especially REO Speedwagon. This was voted upon by about 15 voters on this website who represent different views and preferences on music.

Here are our top 98 snubs:

1. Kraftwerk
2. Deep Purple
3. Beastie Boys
4. King Crimson
5. MC5
6. T.Rex
7. Joy Division
8. Roxy Music
9. The Smiths
10. New York Dolls
11. Rush
12. Sonic Youth
13. Peter Gabriel
14. The Moody Blues
15. The Cure
16. Yes
17. Depeche Mode
18. Stevie Ray Vaughn
19. The Zombies
20. Judas Preist
21. Big Star
22. Dick Dale
23. Chicago
24. Guns N' Roses
25. Link Wray
26. The Cars
27. The Replacements
28. KISS
29. The Monkees
30. Jethro Tull
31. Johnny Burnette & The Rock and Roll Trio
32. Motorhead
33. Emerson, Lake & Palmer
34. Red Hot Chili Peppers
35. New Order
36. Iron Maiden
37. Soundgarden
38. Electric Light Ochestra
39. Duran Duran
40. Def Leppard
41. Gram Parsons
42. Cheap Trick
43. Thin Lizzy
44. Husker Du
45. Donna Summer
46. Devo
47. B-52s
48. Donovan
49. Steve Miller Band
50. Spinners
51. Cat Stevens
52. The Jam
53. Afrika Bambaataa
54. Nick Drake
55. Love
56. Randy Newman
57. Heart
58. LL Cool J
59. Dead Kennedys
60. Can
61. Dire Straits
62. Warren Zevon
63. The Carpenters
64. Faith No More
65. Eurythmics
66. The Marvelettes
67. Sparks
68. Chic
69. Linda Rondstadt
70. Journey
71. Hall & Oates
72. Bad Company
73. Janet Jackson
74. The Buzzcocks
75. War
76. Black Flag
77. Peter, Paul and Mary
78. Eric B. and Rakim
79. Connie Francis
80. My Bloody Valentine
81. Silver Apples
82. Doobie Brothers
83. Mary Wells
84. Jan & Dean
85. Slayer
86. Procol Harum
87. Kate Bush
88. Megadeth
89. Barry White
90. XTC
91. Scott Walker
92. INXS
93. X
94. Stone Roses
95. Mötley Crüe
96. "Weird" Al Yankovic
97. Bon Jovi
98. Whitney Houston

Posted by Gassman on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 17:16pm


The article did have a point, that the term "influence" can be overused. However, they then ruined whatever argument can be made out of that:

-There will always be debate over who gets in. The days of no-brainer choices is long gone. You're writers... do some research. It hardly takes any time. If I'm unsure about somebody's influence I just google their name and "influence", and some of it I can get from information I have at hand for free. It's not difficult.
-The problem with Goldmine is they base all their arguments on who they like and dislike. I'm not a fan of The Velvet Underground, but where the article loses credibility is where they try to argue agains the VU's importance (documented countless times) and dismiss them as a worthy induction simply because they don't like them. That is journalism at it's laziest.
-Speaking of which, that kind of thing is too subjective to be a substantial argument. There's no accounting for personal taste, therefore it should be irrelevant to both us and the people in charge of the Hall.
-They want to argue that too much emphasis is placed on influence and then overrate popularity; they can't have it both ways. Tying this into the previous points: They've never heard of Eric B. & Rakim, therefore they shouldn't be in. The Guess Who were popular in the US and Canada and have gotten the seal of approval from them, therefore they should be in. Foreigner were incredibly popular and are liked by Goldmine, therefore they should be in. See where I'm going with this?
-Even when I agree with their choices (and I agree with quite a few) there's still holes to be found. I'm not a fan of The Monkees but I agree they should probably be in. Focusing on their popularity? OK fine; it was head and shoulders above most other people at the time, after all. (My sidenote: Why not them but yes to The Dave Clark Five and The Hollies, both of whom have negligible qualifications in comparisons.) They do an excellent job pointing out that many Hall Of Famers used session musicians and outside writers; so far, so good. But then they ruin this momentum with this tidbit: "But none other than Brian Wilson said The Monkees provided him with inspiration..." Tut tut, picking and choosing again. Bad form. Also, they rightly listed The Smiths as one of the top snubs (again not a major fan) but they included them as an example of commercial success. Not if he's referring to the US: 3 Gold albums, none of which charted in the top 50. The only charts for their singles I can find: How Soon Is Now? #36, The Boy With The Thorn In His Side #49... on the dance charts (neither is a dance song by the way). Consistency is all I ask.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 10.18.11 @ 19:43pm


First established in 2000, the sidemen category "honors those musicians who have spent their careers out of the spotlight, performing as backup musicians for major artists on recording sessions and in concert." A separate committee, composed mainly of producers, chooses the inductees. In 2010, the category was renamed to "Award for Musical Excellence". According to Joel Peresman, the president of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, "This award gives us flexibility to dive into some things and recognize some people who might not ordinarily get recognized."

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.24.11 @ 13:01pm


Only 20th century artists should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Even after 2025 when 21st century artists become eligible. 21st Century artists should not be inducted into The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. Nothing is original anymore. It's all been done before. These people are not Rock Gods! They are not dinosaurs! They are not the originators! Enough is enough! People should stop making new music and find something better to do with their time. The music industry is dead! It was announced numerous times at the 2008 Rock Hall! People should move on with their lives. Once all the 20th Century artists have been inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, the Rock Hall should stop making annual induction ceremonies. This is not like sports. Plus, you don't see new dinosaurs appearing in museums every year, but there have been new findings in recent years. If people still visit dinosaur museums, people will still visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum even if they no longer make induction ceremonies. It's time to move on! The music industry is dead! 20th Century=groundbreaking!

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 11.6.11 @ 06:50am


Roy, that is the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on this website.
People should stop making new music? you can't actually like music or else you wouldn't say something so dumb. just piss off you stuck in the past bastard.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 11.6.11 @ 07:16am


First established in 2000, the sidemen category "honors those musicians who have spent their careers out of the spotlight, performing as backup musicians for major artists on recording sessions and in concert." A separate committee, composed mainly of producers, chooses the inductees. In 2010, the category was renamed to "Award for Musical Excellence". According to Joel Peresman, the president of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, "This award gives us flexibility to dive into some things and recognize some people who might not ordinarily get recognized."

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 11.19.11 @ 22:52pm


I didn't know where else to put it so I decided to type this here (figured it was the most appropriate place after all). I was trying to find info on those artists on here who are getting the highest induction chances, say, the Top 10 or something (Right now, I'm almost certain Eminem, the Beasties and Nirvana are the top 3 after doing some browsing). But getting this info is actually fairly tricky to come by. The easiest way is to use the "Complete List of Artists Page."

My point is, I wonder why FRL doesn't have this listed in their "Voting Statistics" page? I mean, there's things like "most yes/no votes," "highest/lowest fan approval," etc on there. Why not add induction chances (those artists listed on here with the ten highest induction chances)? It's also pretty relevant and it would definitely be interesting to see.

More so a statement than anything else, don't mean to thread on anybody's territory here, just curious.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 10:22am


Having grown up in Michigan, my mother was a huge Mo-town fan, and a fan of what I consider to be "real" rock-n-roll. She listened to the Doobie Brothers, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, Grand Funk Railroad, and also all the oldies. There was a constant buzz of rock-n-roll in our home. As I grew up, of course, what you listen to is typically what you like when you are older, great bands like Led Zepplin, Judas Priest, Aerosmith, Rush, Journey, The Scorpions, all in my humble consideration, "Rock Bands." Another two favorite as I am a girl, Pat "rockin'" Benatar and Heart. When I read over the list of folks who have been inducted and do not see some of these names, yet see ones such as ABBA no offense, but my Mom wouldn't listen to them for anything, not rock..dance/pop..and yet they are in and ground breaking folks like Heart and The Moody Blues are not? I realize there is probably politics to a certain degree when it comes to who gets in, gets enough votes, and so on..but I truly have given up, my girl Pat, again passed over, and Heart, give it up for Ann and Nancy, I mean come on..I love the Chili Peppers, Beastie Boys, and yes, I know who and what were the Faces..stand up people and make your voices heard about people who continue to be snubbed, it is really getting to be ridiculous. VegasKelly

Posted by kelly jackson on Thursday, 12.8.11 @ 14:13pm


I seriously think that the committee that does the selcetion of ROCK bands into this Rock and Roll Hall of fame should be more in touch with the concept of what ROCK and ROLL is. I also think that one of the criterias should be longevity... Guns n Roses had one great album and a few good albums but they didnt stay together more then 10 or so years. Plus they only had a couple of good albums... The lead singer would make his fans wait hours til he got on stage or canceled the show just before he got on... This is someone that influences others? Please... there are tons of other bands that have been around over 20+ years if not more, who are still mnaking, playing and recording music... Like some people said this is more of the rock and roll hall of shame......

Posted by james on Sunday, 12.11.11 @ 10:14am


What, so a band that released a whole bunch of average albums>a band that made a few great ones?

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 12.11.11 @ 12:32pm


Don't make nominations secret, no one will know who to nominate.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 12.19.11 @ 09:49am


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m53kxAGaS20&list=PLDCF866D89D420AC5&feature=plpp_play_all

Eddie Trunk with Rock Hall Foundation President Joel Peresman. The complete interview. The following videos will play automatically.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 12.20.11 @ 16:36pm


Really the whole selection process is controlled by that little fairy Jann Wenner. If he doesn't like the artist they don't get it. It's all his favorites and cronies.
The Hall is a joke.

Posted by Sterculius on Friday, 02.3.12 @ 04:02am


JOINT INDUCTIONS: What Should Have Been/What Was/And What Will Be

01. 1996 - Jefferson Airplane/Starship
02. 1997 - The (Young) Rascals
03. 1997 - Parliament/Funkadelic
04. 2012 - The Small Faces/The Faces
05. 20?? - Joy Division/New Order
06. 20?? - Wham!/George Michael
07. 20?? - Miami Sound Machine/Gloria Estefan

Posted by Roy on Friday, 02.3.12 @ 07:49am


ARTISTS WHO PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MOST FOR NOT BEING IN THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME, OR ARTISTS THEMSELVES WHO COMPLAIN, UPDATED:

01. The Monkees
02. Chubby Checker
03. Mary Wells
04. The Marvelettes
05. Jan and Dean
06. The Moody Blues
07. Deep Purple
08. Chicago
09. Kiss
10. Rush

10. Yes
11. Jethro Tull
12. King Crimson
13. The Doobie Brothers
14. Cheap Trick
15. Heart
16. Linda Ronstadt
17. Tina Turner
18. Carole King
19. Joan Baez
20. Judy Collins

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 08:48am


Roy, where are you getting this from? I don't see how fans of Chubby Checker, Mary Wells and Jan and Dean complain more than fans of Kiss and Rush.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 09:25am


I made it up from what I read and hear.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 10:20am


THE 10 ARTISTS WHO PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MOST FOR NOT BEING IN THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME, OR ARTISTS THEMSELVES WHO COMPLAIN, UPDATED, WITH SENIORITY:

01. Chubby Checker
02. Mary Wells
03. The Marvelettes
04. Jan and Dean
05. The Monkees
06. The Moody Blues
07. Deep Purple
08. Chicago
09. Rush
10. Kiss

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 10:43am


A Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Induction Ceremony To Make Everyone Happy!

01. Chubby Checker
02. Mary Wells
03. The Marvelettes
04. Jan and Dean
05. The Monkees
06. The Moody Blues
07. Deep Purple
08. Chicago
09. Rush
10. Kiss

Another Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Induction Ceremony To Make Everyone Happy

01. Yes
02. Jethro Tull
03. Cheap Trick
04. Warren Zevon
05. Gram Parsons
06. Cat Stevens
07. Randy Newman
08. Linda Ronstadt
09. The Doobie Brothers
10. Electric Light Orchestra

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 02.26.12 @ 07:33am


I don't see how that would make the guys who want more alt in the hall happy...

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 02.26.12 @ 10:02am


I think by "everyone" he means himself.

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 02.26.12 @ 13:50pm


Blondie is in and Rush is not. Enough said about the joke called The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by Dean Larsen on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 16:59pm


Personally I find most of Rush's longer conceptual pieces to be horse manure. 2112 ("we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control-lol). La Villa Strangiato. Cygnus X-1. The Fountain of Lamneth. The Necromancer. Natural Science. I did like Moving Pictures, but fantasy themed 1970s prog rock bands with self-indulgent 20 minute jaunts can be just as trite as it sounds. That said, some of their shorter, less gimmicky songs were good. The Trees. Closer to the Heart. Tom Sawyer. Even Working Man. I'd vote for them (I went through a long Rush stage), but I can see why they may not be everyone's cup of tea.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 18:19pm


Personally, my "Hall Of Fame Ceremony to make everyone happy" would change everytime I made one, bar a few essential names. But that's just me

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 19:01pm


I like Moving Pictures too. Need another listen to 2112

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 19:03pm


I like Rush and think that they'd be a credible inductee, but they're far from being the "stop the Earth on it's axis" omission that their more vocal, cultish fans like to pretend. And they're certainly not an important enough omission to make the RRHOF a "joke" (and that word has become one of the laziest, most tired cliches out there).

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 20:22pm


the halls big enough for blondie and rush, they'r eboth great bands.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 03.1.12 @ 11:34am


Why are the Moody Blues not in the rock and roll hall of fame? Thanks for any reason You can give me!

Posted by Joe Kowalczyk on Saturday, 03.3.12 @ 08:55am


somethimg is wrong with this the carpenter never in there .I look at the list what a joke .there are people that change music and some that are apart of music for ever.it should be the people not a handful.you guys are wrong

Posted by carol on Tuesday, 03.6.12 @ 14:38pm


very good, it's very useful to me, thank you very much!

---------------------
runescape gold, http://www.playersaid.com/runescape-gold/

Posted by pawowgold on Tuesday, 03.6.12 @ 16:54pm


Soundgarden is on fire since reuniting, and Chris Cornell too with his amazingly flexible 4 octave singing range. How is it they still haven't qualified??? Even the Beastie Boys are up for 2012, who I feel though talented can't touch SG's music, songwriting, lyrics or singing talent. This is not meant to deride the BB. Seriously, is the RRHF carrying a grudge????

Posted by j. lindberg on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 15:43pm


j. lindberg - Unfortunately, Soundgareden is most likely going to have to wait until Nirvana and probably Pearl Jam gets in.

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 15:47pm


I think it is appalling that some groups get ignored by your committee. For example, Heart,Styx, Foreigner, and the cars are all deserving of the hall but you don't even consider them, but yet you allow guns and roses in the hall, and the talking heads. not one of the groups mentioned before is as bad a group as the talkingheads. In fact, they are all better than them. I realize that it is a matter of opinion, but styx and foreigner deserve to be in the hall.

Posted by Dale Pionk on Saturday, 03.31.12 @ 23:58pm


Styx and Foreigner over Talking Heads?
Seriously?

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 04.1.12 @ 08:17am


Typical right brain space cadet criteria. Innovation and influence is the main criteria? Come on. And if that was the main criteria Then how can Frampton, Rush, Kiss, Yes NOT be inducted on those two criteria alone!!!! Everyone of these artist were innovative in their own right. Which led to youngs kids being influenced to be like their Rock "Gods" or "Heroes". Neil Pert of Rush is considered THE BEST drummer of all time and if he is not the best he is int he top three. Who is more innovative and influential then him. All new drummers use him as a comparison and someone to aspire to!!! How about KISS. Can you be any more Innovative.
THere HAS TO BE an objective way of inducting Bands not this Subjective method by a board of idiots with their own prejudices. It's ridiculous and insulting to those of us that have a brain!!

Posted by Mike Pro on Wednesday, 04.18.12 @ 09:12am


Skimming through these pages I've noticed a lot of interesting and not so interesting stuff. Someone listed a number of black '50s & early '60s R&B acts as "not being rock'n'roll",I think he mentioned Little Anthony & The Imperials and Percy Sledge, among others. Let's not forget that the early definition of what was rock'n'roll in the early was quite different than what it had become after the British Invasion, the San Francisco psychedelic revolution, and the advent of 'progressive' FM radio, and its lower rent cousin AOR radio. That being said, I don't really think Sledge deserves to be in the Hall, but he is rock'n'roll, by the definition that was applicable in his time. Until 1965 or thereabouts, R&R and what would now be considered R&B were pretty much synonymous. Rockabilly, which would now be considered country, was a big facet of rock'n'roll. Soul didn't separate itself from rock until Motown came along. So while you could easily say that Glen Campbell is not R&R, you can't really say that about Johnny Cash. He was rockabilly. While you could say that theO'Jays or Gladys Knight & The Pips are not rock'n'roll, because they achieved popularity after soul had differentiated itself, you couldn't say that about someone like Esther Philips, the bulk of whose recordings came in the '50s when there was no differentiation. And, yes, I know, her biggest hit was a disco song from the '70s, but that was very late in her career and didn't represent the bulk of her recorded output. The definition of what is rock and what is not changes constantly, so I can understand going with a very expanded definition.

Posted by Scott on Monday, 04.30.12 @ 01:15am


Did You Know; NW is the text message abbreviation for No Way


http://hortensio4491.posterous.com

Posted by DopsWeego on Monday, 04.30.12 @ 06:02am


Make sure your Band's name is not Rush. :)

Posted by J Smith on Monday, 04.30.12 @ 10:02am


I wasn't saying they shouldn't be in (well, sledge shouldn't), I was making a point that you can't ignore artists because they're not Rock. What makes all those acts rock enough but not, say, Madonna or Run D.M.C.?

Posted by GFW on Monday, 04.30.12 @ 11:09am


Future Sidemen and Addendum Inductees

The Belmonts

01. Fred Milano
02. Angelo D'Aleo
03. Carlo Mastrangelo

The Jordanaires

01. Bill Matthews
02. Gordon Stoker
03. Don Bruce
04. Bob Hubbard
05. Neal Matthews
06. Monty Matthews
07. Hoyt Hawkins
08. Culley Holt
09. Hugh Jarrett
10. Ray Walker
11. Bob Money

The Funk Brothers

01. James Jamerson
02. Benny Benjamin
03. Joe Messina
04. Eddie Willis
05. Robert White
06. Johnny Griffith
07. Jack Ashford
08. Earl Van Dyke
09. Richard "Pistol" Allen
10. Eddie "Bongo" Brown
11. Uriel Jones
12. Bob Babbitt
13. Joe Hunter
14. Marvin Gaye
15. Dennis Coffey

The Wrecking Crew

01. Joe Osborn
02. Larry Carlton
03. Fred Carter, Jr.
04. Tommy Tedesco
05. Leon Russell
06. Billy Strange
07. Hal Blaine
08. Earl Palmer
09. Larry Knechtel
10. Barney Kessel
11. Carol Kaye
12. Glen Campbell
13. Al Casey
14. Rene Hall
15. Don Peake
16. Howard Roberts
17. James Burton
18. Jerry Cole
19. Bill Aken
20. Mike Deasy
21. Doug Bartenfeld
22. Ray Pohlman
23. Bill Pitman
24. Irv Rubins
25. Louie Shelton
26. Steve Douglas
27. Jay Migliori
28. Jim Horn
29. Plas Johnson
30. Nino Tempo
31. Gene Cipriano
32. Roy Caton
33. Tony Terran
34. Ollie Mitchell
35. Chuck Findley
36. Lou Blackburn
37. Richard "Slyde" Hyde
38. Lew McCreary
39. Mac Rebennack (aka Dr. John)
40. Mike Melvoin
41. Don Randi
42. Al De Lory
43. Mike (Michel) Rubini
44. Max Bennett
45. Chuck Berghofer
46. Ray Pohlman
47. Lyle Ritz
48. Red Callender
49. Jimmy Bond
50. Jim Gordon
51. Julius Wechter
52. Gary L. Coleman
53. Frank Capp
54. Jack Nitzsche
55. Tommy Morgan

The Mothers of Invention / The Mothers

01. Ray Collins
02. Jimmy Carl Black
03. Roy Estrada
04. Henry Vestine
05. Elliot Ingber
06. Jim Fielder
07. Don Preston
08. Bunk Gardner
09. Billy Mundi
10. Euclid James Motorhead Sherwood
11. Ian Underwood
12. Arthur Dyer Tripp III
13. Lowell George
14. Buzz Gardner
15. Jeff Simmons
16. George Duke
17. Aynsley Dunbar
18. Mark Volman
19. Howard Kaylan)
20. Jim Pons
21. Bob Harris
22. Ralph Humphrey
23. Jean-Luc Ponty
24. Sal Marquez
25. Tom Fowler
26. Bruce Fowler
27. Ruth Underwood
28. Napoleon Murphy Brock
29. Chester Thompson
30. Terry Bozzio
31. Denny Walley

The Wailers

01. Peter Tosh
02. Bunny Wailer
03. Cherry Smith
04. Beverley Kelso
05. Junior Braithwaite
06. Constantine Walker
07. Hugh Malcolm
08. Aston Barrett
09. Carlton Barrett
10. Earl Lindo
11. Alvin Patterson
12. Rita Marley
13. Marcia Griffiths
14. Judy Mowatt
15. Al Anderson
16. Tyrone Downie
17. Junior Marvin

Wings

01. Linda McCartney
02. Denny Laine
03. Denny Seiwell
04. Henry McCullough
05. Jimmy McCulloch
06. Geoff Britton
07. Joe English
08. Laurence Juber
09. Steve Holley

The Silver Bullet Band

01. Drew Abbott
02. Charlie Allen Martin
03. Rick Mannassa
04. Chris Campbell
05. Alto Reed (Tom Cartmell)
06. Mark Chatfield
07. Shaun Murphy
08. Laura Creamer
09. Rick Vito
10. Fred Tackett
11. David Teegarden
12. Dawayne Bailey
13. Don Brewer
14. Craig Frost

The E Street Band

01. Clarence Clemons
02. Danny Federici
03. Vini Lopez
04. David Sancious
05. Garry Tallent
06. Ernest Carter
07. Roy Bittan
08. Suki Lahav
09. Max Weinberg
10. Steven Van Zandt
11. Nils Lofgren
12. Patti Scialfa

The Revolution

01. Dez Dickerson
02. Andre Cymone
03. Gayle Chapman
04. Bobby Z.
05. Matt Fink
06. Brown Mark
07. Lisa Coleman
08. Wendy Melvoin
09. Eric Leeds

Posted by Roy on Monday, 06.4.12 @ 07:41am


I am seeing red that the HOF sees fit NOT to induct Connie Francis. Are they just biased against Italians? I'm pretty sure they are since she is a staple of many, many rock n roll hits. People all over the world love to listen to her.

Posted by John Gaudio on Monday, 08.6.12 @ 20:32pm


Ever hear of Dion DiMucci?

Looks like the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame inducted him a couple of decades ago.

Posted by joker on Monday, 08.6.12 @ 21:01pm


Or how about Bobby Darin (real name Walden Robert Cassotto) or the Four Seasons? Last time I checked, Frankie Valli (Castelluccio), Tommy DeVito, Bob Gaudio and Nick Massi (Macioci) are all Italian Americans.

Like Dion, all Hall of Famers for over 2 decades. Don't you just hate it when people say throw in accusations without research, joker?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 08.7.12 @ 04:15am


Yes and no. At least it's good for a few laughs.

Posted by joker on Tuesday, 08.7.12 @ 16:24pm


I read on their website that the criteria includes 25 years from the first record recorded in a "generally accepted" way but that has all changed with people putting their own songs on YouTube, on their blog, or any place on the internet, etc. So then, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame needs to revise its rules for induction. Also, I think there should be other rock honors to rival the hall, if they don't want to induct Kiss, Deep Purple, Rush, and some of the other greats. I would already induct Nirvana and Pearl Jam, even though it's not 25 years yet since their first album. So what! Greatness is greatness and that's too obvious for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I guess...

Posted by Scott McLean on Sunday, 08.19.12 @ 14:30pm


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame has inducted all male white groups, all male black groups, and all female black groups, but there has yet to be an all white female group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Who will be the first?

The McGuire Sisters? The Shangri-Las? The Runaways? The Go-Gos? The Bangles?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 09.26.12 @ 21:29pm


The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame has inducted all male white groups, all male black groups, and all female black groups, but there has yet to be an all white female group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Who will be the first?

The McGuire Sisters? The Shangri-Las? The Runaways? The Go-Gos? The Bangles?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 09.26.12 @ 21:29pm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fanny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_(band)

In a 1999 interview with Rolling Stone, Fanny fan David Bowie revealed his respect for the band:


One of the most important female bands in American rock has been buried without a trace. And that is Fanny. They were one of the finest... rock bands of their time, in about 1973. They were extraordinary... they're as important as anybody else who's ever been, ever; it just wasn't their time. Revivify Fanny. And I will feel that my work is done.

— David Bowie

Posted by Rick Vendl II on Wednesday, 09.26.12 @ 21:50pm


No page for Fanny yet! Report them to FRL!

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 09.26.12 @ 21:56pm


The problem is that Fanny (what an unfortunate name) was not nearly one of the most important rock bands. They were a decent band, but that's about it. Name one song by them. On top of that, they were not even the first all female rock band. What they deserve is recognition as one of the first all female rock bands, and one that even grazed the charts. But that's as far as it goes.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 09.26.12 @ 22:25pm


Criteria should be based on contribution to future musicians and how they have impacted society. Innovation, lasting popularity, and have others covered their material should be fundamental in the process. Greatness creates a legacy either by others immitating the music, style or is the composition [song] still relevant and listened to decades later.

Posted by Will on Tuesday, 12.11.12 @ 23:50pm


BE PREPARED!

You can vote on who gets inducted into The Songwriters Hall Of Fame every year. If you are not a member of the music industry, you only qualify for Lifetime Membership, which will cost you $1000.00. You will receive the ballot in your mailbox every year and you can attend the ceremonies. Here is the application to become a member:

The New Way http://www.songhall.org/join

The Old Way http://www.songhall.org/forms/shof_membership.pdf

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 12.18.12 @ 22:16pm


The Hall of Fame has gotten so ridiculous in the past 10 years. When you put the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, etc in before groups such as Chicago, Kiss, even the Carpenters and especially JIM CROCE. Something is wrong. There were so many groups so more deserving before so many of those groups, individuals. Staple Singers, come on. The Stylistics and the Spinners should have been in there first.
60's groups The Turtles, The Grass Roots,Gary Puckett and the Union Gap and Paul Revere and the Raiders should have been in there before so many.
70's groups,Kiss, Styx, Foreigner, REO Speedwagon,Steve Miller Band, the Commodores are so deserving before so many of those placed in the Hall.
The Velvet Underground, The Stooges, The Ramones, The Clash, Staple Singers, etc have no business being in there before the groups mentioned.
Hopefully one of these days the Hall will get it right.

Posted by Gary on Sunday, 01.6.13 @ 19:53pm


The Velvets, Stooges, Ramones, Clash, Staples (odd you'd include them with a bunch of punk and hip-hop groups), Beasties and P.E. are better and more influential than the vanilla groups you've mentioned. Have fun listening to your radio, Gary.

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 01.6.13 @ 20:48pm


The Hall of Fame has gotten so ridiculous in the past 10 years. When you put the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, etc in before groups such as Chicago, Kiss, even the Carpenters and especially JIM CROCE. Something is wrong. There were so many groups so more deserving before so many of those groups, individuals. Staple Singers, come on. The Stylistics and the Spinners should have been in there first.
60's groups The Turtles, The Grass Roots,Gary Puckett and the Union Gap and Paul Revere and the Raiders should have been in there before so many.
70's groups,Kiss, Styx, Foreigner, REO Speedwagon,Steve Miller Band, the Commodores are so deserving before so many of those placed in the Hall.
The Velvet Underground, The Stooges, The Ramones, The Clash, Staple Singers, etc have no business being in there before the groups mentioned.
Hopefully one of these days the Hall will get it right.

Posted by Gary on Sunday, 01.6.13 @ 19:53pm
--------------------------------------------------
I'm kinda yes, & kinda no, regarding what you're saying here.

Plenty of good arguments can be made about Chicago, Foreigner, Steve Miller, etc., that I can't say I blame you for being a tad miffed.

On the other hand, to go out & get all riled up over the Stooges, Ramones, Velvets, etc. is foolish, as they most definitely belong. Rock in general tended to follow that line in the 80's and 90's, so why jump on their case?

You're right when you say that hopefully one day the Hall will get it right, but in some of these cases, the Hall did get it right the first time round. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.7.13 @ 06:31am


what morons pick the inductees. how could Chicago, Three Dog Night, Neil sedaka not be inducted

Posted by Dave Hayes on Monday, 01.14.13 @ 13:27pm


I would add the skill of trying new genres and the skill of communication with the public,the involvement...

Posted by elisabetta on Saturday, 01.19.13 @ 12:32pm


Does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have a rule that states that if an artist is nominated a certain number of times without getting enough votes, that artist will receive an automatic induction if he or she fails to get enough votes the last time they are nominated. What should the criteria be....

I say, that after being nominated 12 times without getting enough votes for induction, you should receive automatic induction because clearly there are people who really want you inducted. Chic is getting close to a 12th nomination, but maybe it will not go that far.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 01.21.13 @ 14:04pm


7 Nominations for Chic
6 Nominations for Chuck Willis
4 Nominations for Joe Tex
3 Nominations for Ben E. King
3 Nominations for Gram Parsons
3 Nominations for The J. Geils Band

Posted by Roy on Monday, 01.21.13 @ 14:12pm


I would cast my ballot for Three Dog Night. There is a song on the Coming Down Your Way album written by Jeff Barry that displays great passion in how Chuck, Cory, & Danny sing. Too bad When It's Over was never released as a single. They probably would have been inducted by now if it had.

Posted by Gina Fox on Sunday, 01.27.13 @ 19:48pm


Why is Steve Miller not a member of the Hall of Fame?

Posted by Linda Harp on Saturday, 02.9.13 @ 22:31pm


Based on the criteria, Link Wray should be in the hall of fame!!! Emerson Lake & Palmer and Captain Beefheart should be in too! These and several other artist have been much more influential, innovative,and creative than a lot of artists that have been voted in. The Hall of Fame to me is a joke!

Posted by Tom F on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 11:59am


Yeah, the hall's done crap on prog.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 12:12pm


Styx, The Monkees, Weird Al Yankovic, Gram Parsons, MC5 & Hermans Hermits will be inducted before Captain Beefheart.

Poor Frank Zappa is long dead & cannot advocate for him.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 15:02pm


Parsons and MC5 belong in that conversation with CB. If Styx Weird Al or the Monkees get in at all, none of our opinions can overcome the fail, anyway.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 16:35pm


Parsons and MC5 belong in that conversation with CB. If Styx Weird Al or the Monkees get in at all, none of our opinions can overcome the fail, anyway.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 16:35pm
--------------------------------------------------
I humbly disagree. I'll pass on Styx, since I could never get into them, but we differ on Weird Al & the Monkees.

I already wrote on the Monkees page that it was still quite common in the 60's for artists not to write their own material, & that many high-end "artists" in fact have outsiders penning their own work. Everybody knows about session men on the recordings back then, & a lot of Hall inductees have session guys on their tracks. Remove those two things, & I fail to see where the line between the Monkees &, say, the Dave Clark Five, or even the Kinks (hello guitarist Jimmy Page) or even Cream (hello outside lyricist Pete Brown) emerges.

In the case of Weird Al, the Hall just simply needs to lighten up. In addition, it would help to remind them that for all the goo-goo eyes they make over their favorite 50's & 60's acts who have track records that last maybe 5 yrs. at the most, Al has been around for over 30 yrs. Some of those acts get in because of nostalgia only. It's interesting, but these folks have forgotten that Al is equally loved by hordes of fans later down the line.

I agree w/all the Posters on the MC5, & you all know my previous push for Link Wray. As for CB, I'll quietly pass.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 02.26.13 @ 06:02am


DarinRG, IMO, all the bands/acts I listed are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Captain Beefheart.

Only when all of them have been inducted (say by 2145), will the Hall take a look at Captain Beefheart.

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 02.26.13 @ 07:12am


wow what a joke the hall is without such groundbreaking and influencial bands as moody blues,jethro tull,yes,judas priest,iron maiden,kiss,bad company, journey and deep purple

Posted by arthur jones on Tuesday, 03.5.13 @ 17:51pm


So, Arthur, who would you consider to be major snubs outside of 70s hard rock and metal? There are plenty of them. Using the word "joke" and throwing out an Eddie Trunk list won't really get you taken seriously.

Posted by DarinRG on Tuesday, 03.5.13 @ 18:34pm


I would like to know why George Thorogood has not been nominated for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

George is a Rock Icon ! Songs like Bad to the Bone, Who do you Love and many more. His Songs are Time less. And George is still on tour over 35 years. George should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Thank You.

Posted by Richard on Friday, 03.8.13 @ 08:46am


The myth:

Leaders in the music industry joined together in 1983 to establish the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. One of the Foundation’s many functions is to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame.
Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.

If only that basis of entry were true!

If there was no bias and sales are not an issue why on earth are Suzi Quattro, Dire Straits and as a solo artist Mark Knopfler not inducted?

It is a mystery to me other than bias against these artists, one because he is a British Jewish northerner and the other who had to leave the US, like Hendrix, who made it big in the UK and paved the way for the likes of Joan Jett, Jennifer Baten and so many others.

Sadly, I do not think Terry Stewart's premise above is true.

Posted by Pat Robins on Sunday, 04.7.13 @ 06:15am


If there was no bias and sales are not an issue why on earth are Suzi Quattro, Dire Straits and as a solo artist Mark Knopfler not inducted?

It is a mystery to me other than bias against these artists

etc. etc.

Posted by Pat Robins on Sunday, 04.7.13 @ 06:15am
--------------------------------------------------
You can make this same argument about a lot of other artists as well.

I'll give you Dire Straits, who have a fine catalog to work with. Suzi Quatro's a bit weak, but there's a case of sorts to be made.

Knopfler solo can fall alongside any one of a bunch of artists, all of whom can claim a basic solo career for induction. Not a knock, but what's really so distinctive about his solo work?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 04.7.13 @ 06:32am


If it's all based on Innovation or Influence then change the name ...it shouldn't be the "Hall of Fame"...it should be the "Museum of Music Innovators/Influence". Fame means the condition of being kwown(famous)by many people for notable achievements. Influence and innovation should be a part but longevity, achievements (album sales, hit records,popularity and concert draw)and music ability should all factor in greatly! It may not be your(commitee members)personal taste in music but great artists/bands shouldn't be shunned because a "committee" feels they didn't invent or influence anyone....that's crazy!!!

Posted by GW on Wednesday, 04.24.13 @ 16:30pm


No really, GW. If commercial success was a major criteria, then they probably wouldn't even have a 25-year criteria before eligibility. Even then, some acts maintain a certain level of popularity, but never are really regarded as highly as some other acts. Plus, there are some who would be regarded as legends, not in the Hall of Fame, but who aren't necessarily thought of as *great* artists.

Posted by JR on Wednesday, 04.24.13 @ 18:19pm


http://web.archive.org/web/20060916172227/http://www.futurerockhall.com/

The old Future Rock Hall site on the Way Back Machine

Posted by Robert on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 10:24am


Robert- Thanks for the memories. I wish we could still call people f*ucktards. I'd wear that word out.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 10:35am


That's awesome. The site turned seven years old last month. Nice to see how far it has come (and how little has changed).

Posted by FRL on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 10:50am


On the nostalgia tip, If we ever had an FRL HoF, Gassman would be my first pick. His ideas for Revisited/Projected, as well as the Album and Song Projects really transformed this site into a destination point for many people (myself included).

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 11:11am


I also have to say that Mr. FRL is the coolest mod ever. He lets the inmates run and police the asylum. We've had voting controversies before and he's been Johnny on the spot with relevant facts, but left judgment up to us. And the only time I've seen him chastise a poster it involved expression of death wishes or plagiarism.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 11:31am


You should put a link to the old FRH on the left sidebar of this site.

Posted by Robert on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 11:41am


I'd totally vote Gass into a FRL HOF, guys a boss.
I imagine I wouldn't get many votes cos i'm a little shit :p

oh yeah TrekkiELO, "Strange Weird Little Man"? i swer to god m8 i will fuk u up u pussio

Posted by GFW on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 12:04pm


I'd vote for you GFW, after I'm in, junior. I'd vote for Rick, too. You can't have an FRL HoF without Rick Vendl II.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 12:16pm


Oh I'd TOTES vote u.

Also rick was mean to me on another site D:

Posted by GFW on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 12:35pm


Well, you abstained from voting for ELO for two rounds, you creepy little bastard.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 13:01pm


How about Gene Pitney as well as Paul Rever and the Raiders. I mean after all Randy Newman is in??? What a joke!!

Posted by Denny on Thursday, 05.2.13 @ 15:24pm


This is my wtf list, because these groups/individuals deserve to be in as much as Public Enemy...
War
The Spinners
Mary Wells
The Moody Blues
Chicago
Deep Purple

These have been eligible for over 20 years and they should be in. These are rock

Posted by Becca on Sunday, 05.19.13 @ 14:49pm


LOL. So, I guess today is "Public Enemy is the Low Bar" Day. Whining about Madonna, Prince or ABBA is just soooo yesterday.

Posted by DarinRG on Sunday, 05.19.13 @ 15:14pm


T.REX and Marc Bolan not ever nominated wtf. One of the most influential artists ever( think Bowie). 2014 please.

Posted by Adam on Thursday, 05.23.13 @ 08:23am


NO DAMN RAP CRAP !

Posted by Robb Jahke on Sunday, 05.26.13 @ 17:19pm


Hey, Robb, in reading your comment on how the Hall of Fame shouldn't have any rap artists inducted? I must ask why do you think that?

Posted by Andrew on Monday, 05.27.13 @ 18:00pm


OK, if album sales and concert sales and hits don't matter, then isn't the Hall of Fame being extremely counter productive to the music industry? Is a label going to sign an artist who can't sell any records or get any radio air time. They say that they are not like any sports HOF's, but come on! If you don't use some type of popularity then you discredit all the Rock and Roll fans! You also open yourself up to criticism by having a we can do want we want approach to who we select. You can't pick Steely Dan and say no to STYX, ELO, Foreigner, Pat Benatar, Boston, etc. It makes the Hall of Fame look foolish and come off as a ego maniacal douche bag. It's obvious that the Hall doesn't go after mainstream, or corporate rock no matter how good. The Ramones may have been somewhat influential, but in reality they were not the best musicians or vocalists. On the other hand ELO has maybe one of the finest musicians/songwriters of all time in Jeff Lynne. One day someone will rise up and create another Hall of Fame. It will be called something else, and it will take a while to catch on, but when it does, watch out music world!!!

Posted by Scott on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 21:48pm


A quick look at the nominating committee provides the entire explanation of who gets in and who doesn't. Policies ought to be written, approved by a diverse selection of rock fans, and the entire nominating committee, who are all the same people since the beginning of the Hall of Fame, should be booted! The current mehods of selecting inductees are strictly political in nature, and crooked. Give the R and R HOF some CREDIBILITY. You won't see me visiting this Godawful bull**** building until those who deserve induction get it. Break up the current nominating committee, and the Board of Directors. Kick them all out. Their money isn't needed. That's the only reason they get away with their manipulation of the system, and the institution, which should die, in my opinion until itis credible. It's like Susan Lucci's snubbing for so any years, probably because eveyone was jealous of her. The RRHOF means ZIP to me as it is set up now. Fix it, now! Don't be discriminatory because of age.

Posted by Susan Robbins on Tuesday, 06.4.13 @ 23:36pm


Who the hell is Susan Lucci?

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 00:22am




Who the hell is Susan Lucci?

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 00:22am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Among other things, Susan Lucci played Erica Kane on the ABC soap opera All My Children from 1970-2011.

Posted by Rick Vendl II on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 01:22am


Rick - Did she sing?

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 03:11am


Gassman - The reference is that Susan Lucci was one of the top soap opera actors of her time and was nominated for Emmys for ten years or something before she finally won. The poster who made the reference gave a passionate, albeit tired, conspiracy theory rant, but never mentioned who she was raging about. She likely laments the absence of a handful mid-tier 70s vanilla rockers and has a problem with Madonna, Prince, ABBA, all hip hop acts who have been inducted or likely all of the above. At least that would be my guess based on experience with drive-by cliche peddlers around here.

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 05:03am


At least that would be my guess based on experience with drive-by cliche peddlers around here.

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 05:03am
--------------------------------------------------
I know what you mean. You have to watch out for those cliché peddlers running around here.

I bought my air-guitar skills off the back of a bus, & boy, did it cost me!

In fact, I think it was Susan Lucci who was driving the bus, now that I recall. She was pushing her new series, "All My Children Are Imaginary Rock Stars".

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 06:24am


In fact, I think it was Susan Lucci who was driving the bus, now that I recall. She was pushing her new series, "All My Children Are Imaginary Rock Stars".

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 06:24am
--------------------------------------------

I used to play sick just so I could stay home from school to watch that.

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 06:36am




Gassman - The reference is that Susan Lucci was one of the top soap opera actors of her time and was nominated for Emmys for ten years or something before she finally won. The poster who made the reference gave a passionate, albeit tired, conspiracy theory rant, but never mentioned who she was raging about. She likely laments the absence of a handful mid-tier 70s vanilla rockers and has a problem with Madonna, Prince, ABBA, all hip hop acts who have been inducted or likely all of the above. At least that would be my guess based on experience with drive-by cliche peddlers around here.

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 05:03am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually it was about 20-30 years since she finally won in the late 1990s.

Posted by Rick Vendl II on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 09:19am


I used to play sick just so I could stay home from school to watch that.

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 06:36am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For me it was my all-time favorite soap opera The Young & the Restless from 1984-present, with General Hospital from 1980-1993 in 2nd, then sometimes All My Children and One Life to Live, not sick per se, I just to catch 'em during Winter, Spring and Summer recess!

8-)

Posted by Rick Vendl II on Wednesday, 06.5.13 @ 21:47pm


@Sam @Susan @Whomever-The problem with the R&RHF, beyond just the usual politics, is that it doesn't seem to have an agreed upon criteria. The nominations are inconsistent, which leads people of snubbed bands to wonder "why A and not B"? For example, how important are record sales vs. critical praise? And in the later case, do the critics have a clue? If record sales are the most important factor, then virtually any middle of the road act should be inducted. If not, then you get seemingly arbitrary critical judgments (Laura Nyro?).

Compounding this, the general critical view of rock is a mess. Certain eras and genres are valued over others. Why? Beats me.

So there you have politics, a nebulous induction criteria that no one can nail down, inconsistent inductions and a view of rock that magically turned the Ramones into the "American Beatles." It's amazing that it works as good as it does.

Posted by astrodog on Thursday, 06.6.13 @ 10:02am


Astro - For once, you & I may be agreeing on something here - & a lot of it, amazingly. I'll ignore the Ramones comment at the end, since the 99% before it is spot on.

At the very end, you stated that "it's amazing that it works as good as it does". Personally, I think it's rather un-amazing that it worked this good up till now. Think about it - if you've a ballot w/names like Elvis & the Beatles on it, it ought to be rather easy to fill a class. You & I could substitute for any of these voters in the early years, & be hailed as geniuses by the general public. The first 20 classes were all cakewalks, & even then, you could've expanded the classes & not been hurt.

I've often expressed my take on the subject when it comes to why certain artists are snubbed, certain genres, etc.

A. The voters tended to be 60's & early 70's centric, w/formative yrs. straddling the 50's/early 60's.

B. They favor pop over rock, but their own musical times in either form over anybody else's.

C. The later voting matches their aging process, & has little to do w/music, & more to do w/whatever was moving them extraneous to music. They simply made up connections to the industry wherever they could, to make themselves feel as though they were doing their job.

D. Critical judgment was done on the earlier records, since the music moved them, & it was easy to place it in context for them. Later down the line, sales became more impt., as they lost passion for the music, but still had to put up a front. It's the reason why the classes over the past few yrs. have featured a mix of obvious commercial behemoths from 75 through the 80's, & critical darlings from 55-75.

E. Compounding this is the fact that their view of rock is far diff. than yours or mine. We may sit here & disagree, but they are working from a third take on the music that neither of us would fully agree on. They do have a clue - in regards to their take on it. The system is not broke - provided you're working w/their system. And that's precisely what they're working with.

Stinks, doesn't it?! :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 06.6.13 @ 16:36pm


Why is Chubby Checker not in the Hall Of Fame. His influence is still felt today. This injustice needs to be corrected.

Posted by Jimmy on Friday, 06.7.13 @ 17:34pm


The Moody Blues And Chicago not in but trash bands like the sex pistols are. You should all be spanked.

Posted by chuck on Friday, 06.14.13 @ 12:27pm


I think you should go by years together infultion of the band. Kiss has been together for 40 years and gold, platium and double platium and a lot people started using piro and lighting

Posted by Lori noble on Sunday, 06.30.13 @ 10:15am


As a 'fan' in general of course I am biased, along with that I think there are too many inducted that should not be BUT as long as you have committed to induct several every year for publicity(?)then I can't fathom why perfomers such as Deep Purple and The Moody Blues are not already inducted. Sales/Popularity; innovation; longgevity and pure skill (in the studio or on stage)are all qualities that should be considered - qualities though that link back to the roots of Rock, whether it be blues, rock-a-billy, British Invasion etc. But not top 40 Barry Manilow pop!!!

Posted by Daved on Wednesday, 07.17.13 @ 14:15pm


If Todd Rundgren doesn't qualify for the Hall of Fame under these rules, then no one else does either. What is the Foundations's problem?

Posted by Ritabold on Saturday, 07.20.13 @ 12:52pm


This might be a Roy-type post but here are the statistics to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees:

292 inducted
719 people inducted
190 Performers
31 Early Infulence
52 Non-Performers
19 Sidemen
432 living inductees
287 deceased inductees
187 individuals
105 groups
251 American inductees
30 British inductees*
6 Canadian Inductees*
2 Irish inductees
2 Jamaican inductees
1 Swedish inductee
1 40s Performer inductee
47 50s Performer inductees
92 60s Performer inductees
37 70s Performer inductees
8 80s Performer inductees
119 inductees classified as Rock
50 R&B inductees**
11 Blues inductees**
8 Country inductees
8 Jazz inductees**
6 Metal inductees
4 Hip-Hop/Rap inductees
4 Prog inductees
4 Punk inductees
3 indutees classified as Pop
2 Disco inductees+
2 Gospel inductees**

Let me know if I made a mistake.

* indicates that some British and Canadian bands consist American members
** indicates the number contains both Performer and Early Influence
+ - even though the Bee Gees is not fully a Disco band, their biggest hits and sucess is mostly Disco

Posted by John R.C on Friday, 07.26.13 @ 18:08pm


http://indianapolis.metromix.com/music/standard_photo_gallery/the-10-worst-rock/2840535/photo/2840533

Metromix Indianapolis

The 10 Worst Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Snubs

01. Kiss
02. Rush (inducted)
03. Deep Purple
04. Journey
05. Yes
06. Cheap Trick
07. T. Rex
08. New York Dolls
09. Motorhead
10. Stevie Ray Vaughan

Induction precedent for Kiss is Alice Cooper
Induction precedent for Rush is Jeff Beck
Induction precedent for Deep Purple is Black Sabbath
Induction precedent for Journey is AC/DC
Induction precedent for Yes is Genesis
Induction precedent for Cheap Trick is Aerosmith
Induction precedent for T. Rex is David Bowie
Induction precedent for New York Dolls is Sex Pistols
Induction precedent for Motorhead is Metallica
Induction precedent for Stevie Ray Vaughan is Bonnie Raitt

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 09.11.13 @ 13:58pm


According to Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominating committee member Toure, Questlove of The Roots has joined the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominating committee and the hip hop subcommittee. My question is why is he allowed? Why him? Can any celebrity musician who wants to join, join?

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 09.21.13 @ 20:15pm


He's allowed because he was invited. He's a strong, broadly knowledgeable addition to the NomCom. Glad to see him there.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 09.21.13 @ 21:50pm


I agree, Questlove is a perfect addition to the Nominating Committee. He might even join Paul Schaffer when they are playing during the induction ceremony. With Toure announcing about Questlove in the committee, the Nomintating Committee are now together to determine the 2014 ballot.

Posted by John R.C. on Saturday, 09.21.13 @ 22:00pm


To Future Rock Legends:

Through your connections you have been able to find out the names of all the people on the nominating committees for the performers category, the non-performers category and the sidemen category.

Would it be possible for you to find out the names of the people on the committee that decides which members of bands and groups are inducted?

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 09.22.13 @ 12:23pm


Camper van Beethoven must absolutely be inducted. Immediately. They were and still are totally revolutionary in their approach as well as their execution. And they are still carrying the torch today for every independent rock that followed. Accept no imitations. There are none.

Posted by Tom Harvey on Thursday, 10.3.13 @ 05:54am


Depeche Mode has been around for over 30 years and continue to perform and have hits today. Yet even today they are not in the hall. This is a travesty.

Posted by Daryl Sulton on Thursday, 10.17.13 @ 10:08am


I read an interesting article on this very subject linked at below. It seems that either obscure hard acts or others from vague miscategorized genres get honored while too many classic rockers from the 70s and 80s are marginalized or overlooked. The hall loses credibility when it keeps inducting stylists who don't fit and fails to respect soft rock icons.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-has-jumped-the-shark-here-s-why

Posted by Rick on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 09:28am


The problem with your average rock critic is that they're afraid of populist happy upbeat music. As if rock in a major key is not cool or hip. This is why soft rock is underrepresented since gatekeeper critical taste is limited to hard stuff. They are wired to hear nothing but bad ass. By that narrow definition, rock must be mad or loud with little room for emotional variety in between. The result is that too many deserving bands whose music is lighter or brighter get left out. And that sucks.

Posted by Joey on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 10:00am


Rock is a musical hybrid mixture of R&B and country and black and white influences. Yet way too many R&B acts are inducted to the sad exclusion of many diverse contributors. Sorry, but Quincy Jones and Etta James and are not rock 'n rollers. Q is a jazz man and Etta was pop soul. When the taste merchants lose sight of what rock actually is and leave out the most obvious, the HoF becomes a joke and not a cultural entity to be taken seriously by rock fans.

Posted by SB on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 10:34am


Bottom line and final word. Back in the 50s, rock 'n roll was the white man's name given to black music. Modern media is sending a message that if you sing too white or not black enough, then you may not be allowed in. That is the criteria for induction. So what it really is is the black music hall of fame disguised as a democratic institution. It's not inclusive of all derivative genres, styles or any sound that is too white or major key melodic. This is why soft rockers get dissed except for some tokens that do not belong. Because it's mostly all about black music and anyone who doesn't accept or realize that is too politically correct to understand. Nuff said.

Posted by JustSayNo on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 11:05am


did you just say the hall was too black?

lol

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 12:34pm


I think I know what he means. He's not knocking it and just saying that's the way it was set up. Yet still, the way I see it, it blackballs soft pop rock yet includes miscategorized inductees from disco, jazz and rap. That's bias or inconsistency. How many different genres do you include or exclude as rock before lines are blurred and are too fixed or arbitrary to be taken seriously? He has a point.

Posted by Sue on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 13:22pm


No one needs to speak for me. Are you one of those thought police ad hominem trolls who likes to draw false conclusions and throw around labels? I'm saying that the nominating committee for induction does not represent a diverse cross section of rock taste nor an even sampling of rock music fans. To anyone with the least sense of logic, reason or common sense, this is a given. Hall induction is too fickle or all over the place to be fair and balanced. Like a bogus electorate, judgment of critics is either token or exclusive and not to be confused with any fair democratic selection process. That's how I see it.

Posted by JustSayNo on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 13:46pm


Are you kidding me? He's right on. Etta James and Quincy Jones are not rock 'n rollers by any stretch. For equal parity representation, they'd have to induct Don Costa and Rosemary Clooney, neither of which belong as well. But of course that won't happen anytime soon if ever. You have to understand that any award that revolves around industry opinion is subject to the judgment of fools. For insiders awards are just a fame game and us real people fans just don't realize that populist taste is the enemy of bohemian elitists.

Posted by Tootie D on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 14:18pm


The best way to look at the hall, really, is to see it as not a "Rock and Roll" hall of fame, but more one of popular music (which is far more interesting than just a regular rock HOF anyway)

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 15:05pm


Then they need to change the name, because all music is not rock 'n roll. If it was, the free world would be in deep trouble. The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame selection process seems to exude an apple and orange aloof criteria for induction thus far. I'm just being honest. Here are what seem to be perpetual picks that make the grade.

1. Singers who recently passed away regardless of style or genre. If you're gonna do this, why not have blind man's bluff parties and flip a coin?

2. Some obscure band that never had a big hit but was a hard cookie cutter group long forgotten. This is for minor key tonality critics who like to hear sad or mad sounds with no sweet melody.

3. Laid back soulsters. If soul was rock 'n roll, it would be less accessible. And someone like Sam Cooke would not have been able to start his own record label, may not have ever written a message song and might still be alive today. Soul is not rock 'n roll. Repeat, soul is not rock 'n roll. Write that on the music class chalkboard 50 times.
And neither is rap or hip hop, by the way. If you include street thug music in the future I would next expect you to go send a RS rocket ship into outer space in search of alien music to label R&R.

4. Mad songstress with a feminist skank attitude who is really not a rock 'n roller but something critics would best call...bitch folk or PMS pop.

5. Alternative bands cool to like because they are different or bizarre. The typical lost soul band that does not sound like anyone else but still sucks. I realize that the best music came and went with the Big Bang of pop culture in the 20th century. But bias for bohemians and ire for pop rock just amounts to so much musical fascism.

If you ever honor old school crooners and induct guys like Nat King Cole or Frank Sinatra, then it would be like inviting Gods to the Devil's party. Sorry, but at heart rock is juvenile delinquent music. To tie it with mature adult classics would really be stretching the definition beyond all believability. At this point, your judgment of applicable taste is on a Twilight Zone drug trip with no serious connection whatsoever to reality.

A quick study of music chart history shows that the 70s was the most diverse era in history with the most hit music and a boom for soft rock. If the hall won't include any popular musicians then it can publicize a special disclaimer newsletter that says that RS does not like ear candy melodic music that gets stuck in your head and prefers loud noise that you can party with or get drunk to. That way critics and detractors will go away.

PS: I bet damn well this site is connected with the Rock Hall in order to gauge public opinion.

Posted by Mr70sSoftRock on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 16:40pm


The best way to look at the hall, really, is to see it as not a "Rock and Roll" hall of fame, but more one of popular music (which is far more interesting than just a regular rock HOF anyway)

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 15:05pm

I disagree. This just feeds the ignorant rawkists who pollute this site every year around this time. All of the artists inducted come from the many subgenres of rock and roll or are from an influence genre, but had enough merit themselves to justify induction into the RRHoF. There are no inductees so far who don't belong in a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the name is perfectly appropriate.

The problem isn't the Hall. The problem is closed minded, self absorbed and historically ignorant commentators.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 17:16pm


"but at heart rock is juvenile delinquent music."

Because juvenile delinquents listen to a lot of soft rock, right?

also bbz, if this site was connected with the hall, do you really think they;d let a little shit like me run around?

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 17:55pm


When it's all said and done, the one big major problem is in bending, molding and shaping the definition of rock way out of proportion so that it seems award masters are grasping for straws.

The RS music opinion cops want Jazz, Soul, Funk, Country, Rap and Hip Hop all to be considered "subgenres" of rock as if it were the only music when the real deal has been MIA/DOA for decades.

Yeah, right. Just like apples are oranges as a poster said. Before you know it, they'll find some classical instrumentalist to induct. Where does it end if they make it up as they go along?

Critical pundits want rock to influence or be influenced by all things musical yet they leave out soft pop rock icons if the music is too good, melodies too sweet and the sound not hard enough.

R&R HoF is a family with a bias for kids adopted over their own flesh and blood. Rock is one form of music, not a half dozen. Once they induct the first GAS crooner, they'll have jumped the shark.

Posted by GFY on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 18:17pm


I think somebody needs to settle on one username and drop a lot of over the top hyperbole if they want to be taken seriously.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 18:23pm


First, I've never read a more racist and sexist post ever. Bitch folk, PMS Pop, street thug music? Really? You think that's okay?

Second, you know nothing about music and are a troll. You deserve no recognition from this point on.

Posted by Gassman on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 18:25pm


We're lucky that these rockist just come here to post just one comment about how Madonna, ABBA or any Hip Hop act got inducted but [insert any Hard Rock or prog act here] didn't, then they might say something like "The Hall is a joke", or "Pop or Hip Hop is not Rock" and never return to this website again. It's like they don't want to be corrected by the regular posters in this site about how wrong or ignorant they say.

I think that FRL and the Top of the Charts forum are the only Rock Hall related websites that isn't overrun by Rockists, which is why I love going to those sites for opinions about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by John R.C. on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 18:46pm


John R.C. - Are you a member at ToC or do you lurk? If you're just lurking you should jump in. We need more voices over there.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 19:07pm


When you have no intellect for debate, resort to foolish name calling. If there are any isms going on, they are in the HoF selection process. As in musical fascism. Seems that rock icons don't count unless they have a hard minor key songbook. While R&R claims endless influences, why are so many acts soft, melodic or upbeat still left out of the hall? Unless or until R&R HoF is more inclusive, it will have its critics who see the forest for the trees.

Posted by Mr70sSoftRock on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 19:25pm


Good lord, GFY's like my awful doppelganger.

Also, musical Fascism? I think wanting to keep Rap, Soul, Folk, Alt and Trad Pop is a better example of "musical fascism" then keeping out "melodic, upbeat soft rock" (which by the way, is a hell of a broad genre, what acts are you even on about?)

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 21:36pm


Then they need to change the name, because all music is not rock 'n roll. If it was, the free world would be in deep trouble. The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame selection process seems to exude an apple and orange aloof criteria for induction thus far. I'm just being honest. Here are what seem to be perpetual picks that make the grade.

2. Some obscure band that never had a big hit but was a hard cookie cutter group long forgotten. This is for minor key tonality critics who like to hear sad or mad sounds with no sweet melody.

3. Laid back soulsters. If soul was rock 'n roll, it would be less accessible. And someone like Sam Cooke would not have been able to start his own record label, may not have ever written a message song and might still be alive today. Soul is not rock 'n roll. Repeat, soul is not rock 'n roll. Write that on the music class chalkboard 50 times.
And neither is rap or hip hop, by the way. If you include street thug music in the future I would next expect you to go send a RS rocket ship into outer space in search of alien music to label R&R.

4. Mad songstress with a feminist skank attitude who is really not a rock 'n roller but something critics would best call...bitch folk or PMS pop.

5. Alternative bands cool to like because they are different or bizarre. The typical lost soul band that does not sound like anyone else but still sucks. I realize that the best music came and went with the Big Bang of pop culture in the 20th century. But bias for bohemians and ire for pop rock just amounts to so much musical fascism.

Sorry, but at heart rock is juvenile delinquent music. To tie it with mature adult classics would really be stretching the definition beyond all believability. At this point, your judgment of applicable taste is on a Twilight Zone drug trip with no serious connection whatsoever to reality.

A quick study of music chart history shows that the 70s was the most diverse era in history with the most hit music and a boom for soft rock. If the hall won't include any popular musicians then it can publicize a special disclaimer newsletter that says that RS does not like ear candy melodic music that gets stuck in your head and prefers loud noise that you can party with or get drunk to. That way critics and detractors will go away.

PS: I bet damn well this site is connected with the Rock Hall in order to gauge public opinion.


Posted by Mr70sSoftRock on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 16:40pm
--------------------------------------------------
I'm torn here. On one hand, you've a few solid arguments here that I'd agree w/wholeheartedly. On the other hand, you waste all this bluster to defend the merits of what... Bread? The Carpenters? Maybe America here?

Your #2 could mean the Velvet Underground. It could also mean the MC5. It could mean the 13th Floor Elevators, the Blues Magoos, Sir Lord Baltimore, Blue Cheer, or any one of a zillion groups. Lots of groups were cookie-cutter, but also rocked a heck of a lot better than any of the soft stuff.

Your #3 has merit, though you haven't mentioned how you feel about the musicians who played on the records. The Stax musicians, Muscle Shoals section, the Funk Brothers at Motown, all whipped up some great music.

Your #4 - mad songstress w/a skank attitude - I guess this means Alanis Morrisette or someone close in nature... so, you're from the 70's? Sounds like the music ran away from you.

#5 - See #4. I apologize for everyone born after the Baby Boomers who made the severe mistake of thinking freely for themselves, while possessing freedom of expression. It seems that perhaps you are the one into musical constraints.

In addition, you contradicted yourself when you state that rock & roll is at heart a juvenile form, and then proceed to slag off intense volume in the name of "soft" rock. At it's best, soft rock is not rock, but rather a modification of pop form to suit the world at hand (a.k.a. the early 70's).

btw - How did all this anger come out of a person listening to Bread records? Did you lack for bread to eat? If this was the case, then why did you waste your bread (cash) buying Bread records? Or did you save your bread (cash) by trading bread (food) to buy Bread (music)? If you're still angry about it, then why are you yelling at those younger than you? Why didn't you do something sensible back then?! What, are we supposed to feed you as well?!

Heck, I can't get food myself here! It's breakfast time where I am, & yet here I sit, forced to discuss Bread! Am I eating it right now! Oh, no... NOOOO!!!!! Instead, just because you failed to follow FDA guidelines on nutrition 40 years ago, I have to sit here and suffer, defending my right to have rocked in the 80's & 90's, & anybody else's right in the 2000's & beyond!

I'm Hungry! :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 10.20.13 @ 07:02am


If more people didn't take the Rock Hall's name so literally, they wouldn't wonder why other genres are included under that umbrella phrase.

The Rock Hall (again) has addressed the issue:

http://rockhall.com/blog/post/10154_the-roots-and-definition-of-rock-and-roll/

Posted by JR on Sunday, 10.20.13 @ 08:47am


"4. Mad songstress with a feminist skank attitude who is really not a rock 'n roller but something critics would best call...bitch folk or PMS pop."

What? I don't even know how to take this blatant sexism. If a critic ever called a woman's music, bitch folk, they would lose their job. And any kind of respect.

Rock is a genre based on Sex and Youth. Did it grow from there? Of course, but the core of the genre has always been built on concept over musical similarity.

And you point out nothing about the misogyny and rampant sexism of so many Rock styles.

Posted by Chris F. on Sunday, 10.20.13 @ 16:04pm


How Johnny Rivers is rarely mentioned is beyond me. The man was as significant an American artist as there was in the 60's, competing quite well with the Beatles and other dominating British rock bands. He "made" the Whiskey-a-Go-Go" an immensely popular place with people, celebrities and fellow musicians, coming to see HIM play. His sound live is as good as any musician out there, one of the best performers of any generation with many of his popular recordings performed live. He has recorded epic songs, covers and his own, that have influenced many artist since. He also has run his own record studio and produced hits for others, such as the Fifth Dimension. He should at least be on any nomination ballot created. Truly a travesty that he is often left out of the discussion.

Posted by Danny on Tuesday, 10.22.13 @ 09:44am


I would like to nominate Johnny Maestro, lead vocalist of the Crests & The Brooklyn Bridge. Johnny has passed and we, lovers of music, would like to see him inducted into the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame. We this honor has long been overdue. Alone the Brooklyn Bridge has sold over 10 million records. Johnny was the front man with The Crests in the early 60's, The Del Satins, and The Brooklyn Bridge . I am sure you are familiar with "The Worst That Could Happen" written by Jimmy Webb. It would be in the Hall's best interest to induct Johnny Maestro posthumously. It is my honor the nominate Mr. Johnny Maestro. Thank you for considering this request.

Posted by Al Makowski on Wednesday, 11.20.13 @ 14:30pm


I would like to nominate Johnny Maestro, lead vocalist of the Crests & The Brooklyn Bridge. Johnny has passed and we, lovers of music, would like to see him inducted into the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame. We this honor has long been overdue. Alone the Brooklyn Bridge has sold over 10 million records. Johnny was the front man with The Crests in the early 60's, The Del Satins, and The Brooklyn Bridge . I am sure you are familiar with "The Worst That Could Happen" written by Jimmy Webb. It would be in the Hall's best interest to induct Johnny Maestro posthumously. It is my honor the nominate Mr. Johnny Maestro. Thank you for considering this request.

Posted by Al Makowski on Wednesday, 11.20.13 @ 14:30pm


I would like to nominate Johnny Maestro, lead vocalist of the Crests & The Brooklyn Bridge. Johnny has passed and we, lovers of music, would like to see him inducted into the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame. We this honor has long been overdue. Alone the Brooklyn Bridge has sold over 10 million records. Johnny was the front man with The Crests in the early 60's, The Del Satins, and The Brooklyn Bridge . I am sure you are familiar with "The Worst That Could Happen" written by Jimmy Webb. It would be in the Hall's best interest to induct Johnny Maestro posthumously. It is my honor the nominate Mr. Johnny Maestro. Thank you for considering this request.

Posted by Al Makowski on Wednesday, 11.20.13 @ 14:30pm


So here's my question. How come there isn't a single shred about Motley Crue on here. They've been snubbed more than a handful of time, yet they were an influence. Not just MY influence, but a leader in the "hair band" genre. That being said, they have to have some kind of standing that will allow the Hall to finally give Motley Crue the so deserved enshrinement in history.

Posted by Abdul Ahmad on Monday, 11.25.13 @ 11:17am


Abdul, I'm not sure 'hair band' is a genre you want to be associated with if you are serious about getting into HOF.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 11.25.13 @ 14:28pm


I guess the committee never heard of The Doobie Brothers....they are still rockin it out to this day and sound better then ever!!!!!!

Posted by Beth on Monday, 11.25.13 @ 21:44pm


Hey FRL, I think you'll be really happy about this. In the Induction Process at the Hall's website, they removed the 50% rule and the only thing that remains is that you need the highest votes to get inducted.

Take a look at the link below:
http://rockhall.com/inductees/induction-process/

Posted by John R.C. on Wednesday, 12.18.13 @ 22:44pm


Ha! Awesome... Only took, what, two years?

Posted by FRL on Wednesday, 12.18.13 @ 23:02pm


So why exactly are the Moody Blues not in the Rock and Roll hall of fame.
Can you take this place seriously while they are not inducted when compare to some of those who have
If the hall hasnt come to that conclusion on its own the whole criteria is in question.
Is there agenda driving the process?

Posted by Don on Tuesday, 01.7.14 @ 14:19pm


I am curious if The Outsiders from Cleveland Ohio have ever been considered for induction to the hall of fame?
Before you fall out of your chairs laughing, please consider the difference that they made in the mid 1960's.
Like the Beatles before them, they single handedly changed the musically landscape by adding something to rock and roll that had never been considered before that. A full horn section and a driving guitar solo that grabs you from the start and never lets go.
Had the Outsiders of made better choices, their influence would still be heard and used today.
Bands such as Chicago,Bread along with countless others credit the Outsiders with influencing them and helping to launch a new genre of Rock.
Would these bands have used a horn section if not for the Outsiders, it is hard to say, but you cannot argue with the fact that The Outsiders changed the musical landscape.
Here in the city of Cleveland Ohio, Tom King is still revered and beings the Rock Hall is here in Cleveland, it would be a fitting tribute to Tom and his FAMILY.

Posted by mike king on Thursday, 01.30.14 @ 21:52pm


The Outsiders have never been considered and never will. I've heard rumors of their influence, but am skeptical. As far as innovation goes, I really don't think they were doing much not already being done by Stax/Volt and Motown. And impact, they don't have much in their favor. I've actaully heard the argument before, but honestly, they dropped the ball. The first white rock act that really made a run with that ball is the Buckinghams, and I think I'm the only one on this site who even supports them. So no, the Outsiders have no shot.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 01.30.14 @ 22:20pm


FRL, on the induction ceremony page, the 1995 ceremony was actually broadcast, but taped for a later date. The ceremony was broadcast on MTV.

http://rockhall.com/inductees/ceremonies/1995/

Posted by John R.C. on Thursday, 02.27.14 @ 10:40am


Thanks, John R.C. -- any idea if 1996 was televised as well? It was broadcast back to Cleveland via closed circuit, but haven't found any mention of it on TV.

Posted by FRL on Thursday, 02.27.14 @ 11:33am


I think that the ceremony wasn't broadcast in 96. I think the reason they broadcast the 95 one is because they have big names at the ceremony. It might probably be in MTV as well before they move to VH1.

Posted by John R.C. on Thursday, 02.27.14 @ 16:05pm


I heard musicians that are inducted into the RnR HOF are required to pay the HOF $10,000 each. Seems crazy to me. Anyone know if this is true?

Posted by Siouxie S on Monday, 04.14.14 @ 10:46am


I very much doubt it. I can't imagine anyone in the Sex Pistols coughing up any money, yet they were inducted.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 04.14.14 @ 12:51pm


I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Grand Funk Railroad has not been inducted into the Hall of Fame! As far as I'm concerned (and a lot of my friends) the Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame does not exist. How can a RAP artist be inducted when one of the greatest American Rock-N-Roll bands is not even in the Hall of Fame.
We will never visit until the name refers to the music it is suppose to represent, Rock-N-Roll!

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 04.16.14 @ 14:14pm


That's because Grand Funk Railroad sucks. Sorry I'm not sorry. Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, Beastie Boys and Public Enemy are all more important to the developement of Rock-N-Roll than Grand Funk. I can't wait until Kanye West gets in. :D

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 04.16.14 @ 15:17pm


Wait. There's a serious issue that needs to be addressed here. How will the RRHoF afford to keep the doors open if he and his refuse to visit?

Posted by DarinRG on Wednesday, 04.16.14 @ 15:44pm


Rap music and it's musicians ( if you can really call them that ) do not belong anywhere near the RRHoF..Let that genre start it's own place people can revel in that nastiness..I would cringe seeing that crap if I should ever visit...

Posted by kelly on Wednesday, 04.16.14 @ 17:06pm


I've been thinking of honest criteria for RRHOF. I think selling over 100 million CD's is an outstanding accomplishment in the downloading & digital age. 20 Top 20 hits over a career would be impressive as well as a group that could produce 3 Diamond CD's.

With so many styles of music art rock, prog, heavy metal, R&B,grunge, rap metal,jazz rock, I wonder how future music groups can be truly "innovative". It will be mixing & matching different styles of music.

Here's a list of groups that I think should be in RRHOF. No particular order.

1. Def Leppard 2.Duran Duran 3.Bryan Adams 4. Scorpions 5. Pat Benatar 6.The Cure 7. Paul Rodgers in some form 8.Counting Crows (not eligible yet) 9. Steve Miller Band 10. Alice In Chains (not eligible yet) 11. Pearl Jam (not elugible yet (ligiblet) 12. Stone Temple Pilots (not eligible yet) 13. Dire Straits 14. Deep Purple 15. Roxy Music 15. Radiohead 16. Chicago 17. Judas Priest 18. Iron Maiden 19. Whitney Housyton 20. Kool &The Gang 21. Moody Blues 22.Mariah Carey 23. Soundgarden 24. YES 25. Foreigner 3 groups that I like that won't make Hall---Dokken,Tesla,White Lion. (eligiblig) KING K:)

Posted by KING on Thursday, 05.22.14 @ 17:01pm


Kelly: To bad for you there are already 4 rap artists in. Hope you enjoy your visit!

KING: The Rock Hall has never cared about sales or song charts when it comes to who they nominate or induct. I doubt very much it will change.

Posted by Gassman on Thursday, 05.22.14 @ 17:08pm


Lets get Journey into the Rock andRoll Hall of Fame soon You should be ashamed they are the best rock and roll band ever with the greatest singer In Steve Perry. Come on guys

Posted by angela Ross on Tuesday, 06.3.14 @ 10:47am


E Here's my 2015 RRHOF probable inductees. I already listed my nominees last month. 1.Deep Purple 2.Kool & The Gang 3.Duran Duran 4.Steve Miller 5.Moody Blues 6.Def Leppard 7.Lou Reed. On musical excellence, I don't know but the Silver Bullet band could be inducted . Groups who could also be inducted YES, Foreigner, or Roxy Music. What do you music fans think who will be inducted King? KING

Posted by KING on Thursday, 06.5.14 @ 14:54pm


LLike to see induction 12 members of RRHOF sifting through a group's merits like a jury trial. It can be informal with drinks & popcorn watching concert footage or listening to their CD's for a few hours.

Maybe a nominated group can send an ambassador to conduct a presentation in front of the 12. It's possible that a band member could do the politicking too.

That would be excellent seeing Clapton,Beck,Bruce,Peter Gabriel, Jagger discussing the merits of a band's worthiness. Obvious 12 votes would be unanimous induction. Maybe 9 out of 12 would be the cutoff .That's 75%. There's no easy way...Hundreds of groups scattered over 60 years or so. KING

Posted by KING on Sunday, 06.8.14 @ 18:55pm


Why no Electric Light Orchestra yet?! Or at the very LEAST, Jeff Lynne! Seriously, what the heck. Let's make this happen.

Posted by Lisa on Friday, 06.27.14 @ 22:39pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Basically, this sums up our policy.

No HTML code is allowed.


This site is not affiliated in any way with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation.