Björk

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 2002 (The 2003 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Inducted into Rock Hall Projected in 2021 (ranked #159) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Debut (1993)
Post (1995)
Homogenic (1997)
Vespertine (2001)
Vulnicura (2015)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Human Behaviour (1993)
Army Of Me (1995)
It's Oh So Quiet (1995)
Hyperballad (1995)
Bachelorette (1997)

Björk @ Wikipedia

Björk Videos

Will Björk be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

47 comments so far (post your own)

gotta love the Bjork. xD

Posted by azriel on Saturday, 08.19.06 @ 01:51am


Definitely Massive Attack and Bjork. I'm not quite sure yet if Tricky should get in. At least he'll have to get in line behind those two.

Posted by Kailash on Saturday, 09.2.06 @ 22:07pm


bjork is already eligible. she released an album in the 70 s age 11

Posted by martin on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 07:50am


A no brainer. "Innovation and influence" is written all over her discography. She'll get in once 25 years have passed since Debut, rather than her 70's solo album.

Posted by Casper on Wednesday, 01.17.07 @ 16:05pm


Björk is an original with a sound like no one else's. But she's also not everyone's cup of tea, and her music isn't really "rock." I think she will eventually be inducted, but almost certainly not the first - or even second or third - time she's nominated. She'll be like Black Sabbath, an act who is nominated over and over without getting the vote before she's eventually inducted.

The cool thing about Björk is, she really won't give a damn.

Posted by Andrew on Tuesday, 03.6.07 @ 21:48pm


Her quirky style is only to distract people from her horrific singing.

Posted by Greg on Saturday, 03.24.07 @ 10:21am


Greg, her voice is fantastic (imo) and she has great range (check out "Big Time Sensuality")...maybe you don't like the tone or her Icelandic enunciation of English? Fine, but it's hard to ignore the actual music. Not only is she daringly creative, but her experiments are always a fascinating and pleasurable listen. A shoe-in.

Posted by Casper on Saturday, 03.24.07 @ 15:12pm


Yeah...and don't forget the videos that go along with it...they're quite...well.

Posted by maplejet on Friday, 05.25.07 @ 12:20pm


I am often told music is a means to understanding the different cultures of the world (to a degree). I can only assume the following in regards to Bjork:

That within the vertically devastated terrain of Iceland, the sole means of true communication is to select the target you wish to communicate with and then bellow like a banshee in that general direction until noticed. Perhaps in a land whose main exports I believe to be Vikings, whale blubber, and Yetis, this has become a tried and true means of eccefctive communication, but I'm not so sure this translates into effective rock. But then again this may merely be my skewed attitude coming into play here.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 09.28.08 @ 09:38am
--------------------------------------------------
72 hours have passed since I wrote that, and amazingly enough I still feel the same way.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 10.1.08 @ 06:00am


Bjork is a musical genius(Exhibit A- Vespertine). Her voice has unbeliveable range(see entire catalog). She released a album in 1977 at age 11, she should have been eligible in 2002. I rest my case.

Posted by L on Monday, 11.17.08 @ 16:13pm


Oh, she iss ever fahntashtinko! Oond she maek me violently happy! Wenever I listen to her then will I maek luv wit mine gurlbot. She iss so good maybe she coold even not be human. In 2018 coold Björk possible maek in to Rock Hall of Fame. Planet Earth, you must wait oond see. Goodbye for now.

Posted by Koogle on Monday, 11.17.08 @ 17:20pm


Yes, she has been a prescient musical figure since the mid 90s. I feel her records have guided the direction part of the underground or indie community has taken in this decade.

Debut, Post, Homogenic, and Verspertine rank among my favorite recordings of the last 15 years. The former two display her ability to temper her eclectic influences, particularly baroque pop, with various electronic dance forms. The latter two I feel are among the most imaginative, emotional, pleasurable, and distinct offerings anyone has given us lately. These records have rubbed off on a lot of modern underground musicians, especially those who have implemented electronics in textural, colorful ways.

I love Bjork. She's among the few artists who really are still progressing with each record.

Posted by Jonas on Sunday, 12.21.08 @ 01:41am


She released an album in 1977 so shes already been eligable.

Posted by Chris on Sunday, 06.28.09 @ 22:42pm


WTF? Björk in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame??

KILL ME PLEASE

Posted by Larin on Friday, 08.14.09 @ 04:21am


Bjork should already be eligible, because she made her first album in 1977, despite that her her 1993 album is called "Debut". Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rk_(album)

Anyways, Bjork deserves to be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. She's very creative, and her music is awesome. Also, while she's not as well-known as some musicians, she's not that obscure; Madonna even asked her to write a whole album for her! Hopefully the RRHOF will at least consider her.

Posted by Soap Magic on Friday, 08.21.09 @ 22:02pm


Soap Magic, I believe you have to go to the "Contact Us" page if you want to ask the people behind the site a question.

Posted by Dude man on Friday, 08.21.09 @ 22:06pm


Definitely, at some point. I believe she has been a profound influence on the underground/indie community and on many more popular artists as well.

Posted by Ratchet on Friday, 10.16.09 @ 16:37pm


Commerical sucess? Check.
Innovation? Check
Influence? check.

Should get in first ballot.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 14:43pm


Her commercial success is minimal at best. I wouldn't be so quick to say "Check" to that.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 18:06pm


2 platinum and 5 top 40 albums is a bit more than "minimal".

Posted by DarinRG on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 19:11pm


I'm talking singles charts, actually. Actual, individual songs that people can instantly tie to her.

But really, compared to most HoFers, even that album list isn't all that impressive either.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 21:33pm


Okay, we were looking at different criteria. I'm more a fan of albums than singles, so my mind just automatically goes in that direction.

I'd definitely agree that she was not a singles artist and only had a small amount of success in that area.

As an album artist, though, while she didn't put up Madonna like numbers, I would consider her numbers to be commercially successful, especially for an artist that would be considered by some to be "left field".

Posted by DarinRG on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 22:00pm


There's gotta be some commerical sucess their, enough that an almost completely acapella album can be sucessful in many countries.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 01.12.11 @ 09:32am


Ok, I'll give that her commercial success is more than minimal, but it's like arguing about the merits of Sgt. Pepper's or Highway 61 Revisited, and not being able to name the songs off of them. If an entire album is great, that's terrific, then give me specifics in the particular songs that you found enlightening. I'm not saying an artist has to be bound to a "signature" song, but I put more credence in the singles charts because a song is more of an individual element, and is measured on its own merits, whereas an album is several elements together wherein you can lose the importance, innovation, and influence of a particular song.

I also think of "No Line On The Horizon", an album that many bought because they were diehard U2 fans, only discover that it didn't really have any great songs on it.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 01.13.11 @ 08:30am


I agree with you that it usually takes great songs to make a great album (though as a fan of ambient and other electronic genres I think some albums can stand strongly on a solid overall concept and sound, without a "song", as well), but I'd venture to guess that there are more great songs out there that didn't chart than did.

The singles charts are just a measurement of the performance of specific moments of an album chosen by a label and artist to be selling points of an overall product.

I'm more moved by how an overall album works and performs. I think it's a better indicator of an artist's overall merit. It's like the difference between watching a trailer and an entire film.

Of course, this approach comes with the fact that I consider commercial success to be the least important aspect of determining an artist's merit or importance. To some it means the world. To me it means nothing.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 01.15.11 @ 20:12pm


I'm actually thinking on this more now that I'm involved in the Song Project. It's made me step back and look at what criteria I'm basing my picks on, and I'm realizing that they're based largely on an assessment of a song's cultural ubiquity.

To be honest, I have no idea where any of the songs that I'm voting for charted, or if some of them were even released as singles, but I know they all have a strong cultural presence and importance.

Some of them, undoubtedly, did gain that presence as pushed singles, while others may have been carried to the public conciseness through film, through being an outstanding album track on a legendary album, through word of mouth, tape trading, etc... Hell, Rock and Roll has an entire respected underground cannon that developed without any help from the commercial mechanisms of the industry.

There are many ways for a song to travel to the public and I think the singles chart is just a documentation of a songs performance within that specific commercial mode of travel. It's not a measurement of a songs cultural importance.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 01.15.11 @ 21:01pm


"but I'd venture to guess that there are more great songs out there that didn't chart than did."

Well, that pov is probably prompted primarily by your preference for the indie and underground scene. Which is fair enough, I guess.

"The singles charts are just a measurement of the performance of specific moments of an album chosen by a label and artist to be selling points of an overall product."

Partially, but they're also the indicators as chosen by the public, as well, both in airplay (which while not done perfectly, is actually well done by test marketing... and no, call-in requests are a LOUSY way to measure for a few different reasons). While the best songs from an album can often be omitted from selection as a single, the same is true of the worst songs from an album, too, and what you may often get is what's in the middle, the median, which may be the most accurate gauge overall.

"I'm more moved by how an overall album works and performs. I think it's a better indicator of an artist's overall merit. It's like the difference between watching a trailer and an entire film."

I find that approach only works with concept albums. You can miss out on a great song if you're going to require that its placement in the album list balances the chi of the entire album's feng shui.

"There are many ways for a song to travel to the public and I think the singles chart is just a documentation of a songs performance within that specific commercial mode of travel. It's not a measurement of a songs cultural importance."

I partially disagree. Considering how many of those vehicles either rely or contribute to the songs' placements on charts, and deal with the exhibition of those songs on a public level, I would say there's a lot of cultural relevance in those charts. Great example: "The Time (Dirty Bit)" is perhaps the worst song from the Black-Eyed Peas since "My Humps", but that was the song of choice for struttin' the bikinis during the Miss America swimsuit competition last night. Rightly or wrongly, I think that does say something about the culture. (Miss Rhode Island, btw, was outright robbed.)

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.16.11 @ 15:46pm


IMO the best solo female artist ever with an brilliant emotive voice. (and judging by the pagan poetry video a good body!)

Posted by GFW on Friday, 02.4.11 @ 15:55pm


Influence: bjork is a big influence on alternative and female singers around the world. 30
Innovation: Her work is certainly musically innovative,wh ohad pulled of something that sounded like homogenic before, or albums like Medulla mad enearly completely out of voices for instrumentation (apart from the brilliant bobby mcferrin) 20
Commercial Sales: Bjork isn't a massive seller but she's certainyl sold alot of records. 10
Critical Respect: bjork is widely respected by many publications and critics. 20

80, a secodn balloter atleast.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 10.10.11 @ 15:25pm


I just realised, If Bjork was considered from when she made her first album and got inducted, she'd of bene the youngest rnrhof'er.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 06.22.12 @ 13:24pm


We just adjusted her eligibility date to reflect her 1977 album. So she's now on the Snub List too.

Posted by FRL on Friday, 06.22.12 @ 14:24pm


In 100 years, she will still be infuencing.

The string arrangements on her family tree album are in my top 10 favorite recordings ever.

Posted by mikhail on Thursday, 07.19.12 @ 15:29pm


Yes. She's at the point in her career now where she should be considered yearly. A no-brainer imo.

Posted by Chalkie on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 00:23am


Seriously? Snubbed? This music is so uninteresting and inconsequential that if it didn't exist no one would care.

Posted by BJ York on Tuesday, 03.19.13 @ 11:55am


m8 i will merc u up if u keep chattin shit

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 03.19.13 @ 13:20pm


Saw her at Bonnaroo. One of the most unusual sets I've ever seen. Bjork uses a drummer with full drum kit, a man with an array of synthesizers & a 14 person (all female) backing choir. If you told me they all had to be Iclandic virgins, it would not have surprised me.

She was dressed in what looked like a stainless steel christmas ornament (or cocktail party armour) & had this thing on her head that looked like a giant thistle, but clear instead of purple. You probably need to google her show & see it, as it is pretty hard to describe.

Only words (other than songs) I heard from her was 'thank you' and 'Tennessee'. She allowed no professional photos & had a big banner that asked no photos be taken. I did not comply.

She has a powerful voice.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 06.20.13 @ 08:01am


They'll probably wait until the 25th anniversary of Debut. She's getting in, just not yet.

Posted by Dr. W on Sunday, 07.21.13 @ 17:44pm


I didn't realize she had been around that long, way before I was born! I'm sure she will get in sometime sooner or later. I also thought her work with the Sugarcubes was not that bad either.

Like Paul (in KY), I was there at Bonnaroo this year and what I saw was what he saw. Although I left after five songs because Bjork's voice I couldn't handle anymore.

She's done a lot of crazy stuff outside the music so that could give her some cred

Posted by Jason Voigt on Thursday, 09.5.13 @ 16:14pm


Is it possible the committee has overlooked that 1977 album? Sixteen years is quite a gap between that and what was her first major solo release.
She's been a huge critical success, but never been very mainstream. So, that could hurt her to some degree.

Posted by JR on Friday, 10.18.13 @ 12:05pm


Yeah, more than likely. Most of them probably don't know about it.

It's fair enough I suppose, Debut was essentially her "artistic" debut. She's pretty much disowned the 77 album, it's not even listed on her site's discography.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 10.18.13 @ 12:56pm


Should be called Bjarf

Posted by D. Stroy on Wednesday, 01.29.14 @ 08:24am


Very talented. Should be lock but maybe being held back due to her being unique/weird... love to see her get in...

Posted by seracerveza on Friday, 07.4.14 @ 16:03pm


Eventually, she will.

Posted by BulmaPunkRocker on Sunday, 07.6.14 @ 23:25pm


Anytime you're ready, Hall of Fame. She should be in based off of influence alone, not to mention success and musical artistry.

Posted by NixtonV on Thursday, 07.10.14 @ 11:38am


I think the RnRHoF will need to re-evaluate their methods. The most influencial/talented musical geniuses will never have the best air ratings simply because no radio will ever play her. That doesn't change the fact that any music critic will undoubtedly call her a genius. She has influenced countless other artists in multiple fields (musical and visual arts), often almost completely anonymously, and will leave a lasting mark on the musical landscape. Those modern radio-heavy artists with lots of airtime will be forgotten in a year. Would you induct Katie Perry just for the sake of her sales? True talent is not measured by sales.

Bjork is a true musical genius, no one else does what she does. She is more "Rock'n'Roll" (in terms of state of mind) than many already inducted artists. It would be a travesty if she was not inducted as soon as possible when she is eligible.

Posted by HMan on Friday, 10.3.14 @ 12:57pm


If Rage Against The Machine isn't eligible until next year, don't you guys think they'll wait until 25 years after Debut to consider her eligible?

Posted by Max on Sunday, 10.16.16 @ 01:05am


Yeah, Björk won't be eligible until 2018.

Posted by BJ Sturgeon on Thursday, 10.5.17 @ 09:42am


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.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.