Keith Richards

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 2013 (The 2014 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? Yes  what's this?

Keith Richards @ Wikipedia

Keith Richards Videos

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


12 comments so far (post your own)

Keith Richards is Rock and Roll!!

Posted by Timothy Kraft on Thursday, 03.13.08 @ 16:42pm

I'd say he had a better chance then Jagger

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 08.24.08 @ 14:24pm

refering to their solo careers of course

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 08.27.08 @ 13:02pm

Richards' solo tunes are superior to Jagger's, but neither is worthy of Hall induction for their solo output.

Posted by David on Monday, 10.13.08 @ 21:49pm

I have to say no to Keith Richards solo. I can't name one song from his solo work.

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 13:23pm


01. 1986 Chuck Berry
02. 1987 Aretha Franklin
03. 1992 Leo Fender
04. 2001 James Burton
05. 2001 Johnnie Johnson
06. 2004 ZZ Top
07. 2007 The Ronettes

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.8.11 @ 09:03am

"Will Keith Richards be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?"

Keith Richards has been in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame since 1989.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 10.29.11 @ 11:09am

O.K. I have a question for you all..

Why is this site giving 8% induction chances for Mick Jagger's solo career (and for the record, it says the Hall has previously considered inducting him for his solo career), while Keith Richards gets 29% induction chances for his solo career?

Was Keith Richards' solo career really that much better than Mick Jagger's? Anybody care to comment on this? I mean, what am I missing on Keith's solo output that nearly give him a 1 in 3 chance of induction while Mick gets less than a 1 in 10 chance?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 12.28.11 @ 16:27pm

Tahvo, to answer your question almost two years later (ha), I would say the reason lies in popular perception of their solo endeavors. Richards' two solo records and live album are regarded as authentic, cool, macho, straightforward, bluesy, etc., which are the qualities people desire most from the Stones, whereas Jagger's non-Stones music is often derided as dated, gaudy, over-produced, etc., with Jagger himself positioned as a desperate celebrity favoring in-the-moment chart relevancy over consistent musical integrity. Fair? Perhaps, perhaps not, but there it is.

Posted by David on Monday, 07.22.13 @ 23:37pm

Well, the Stones ARE the best rock/Blues/country/cover even a tad of disco band EVER so that would make Keith the best rythym guitarist, right? Ronnie's awesome too. Keef Gets my unofficial vote. Didn't know this was a Jagger/Richards comment war or that they were competing against each other. For the RRHOF i mean ha ha love them both they must b tired of competing by now, right. The way Mick still runs around on stage is amazing, 71. They don't look tired Neither of them would be where they are today without the other's talent. Imagine music without the Stones, oh I can't, no way. Too horrible a thought. Love you guys too Charlie,Ron, Bill,Mick T. Etc

Posted by Elena on Sunday, 08.10.14 @ 11:50am

David, maybe they tried solo careers cause they wanted to explore other "non-Stones" sounds/possibilities like other big names Tyler/Perry for example. They sound different because they are NOT really twins. Glimmer, siamese or otherwise. Lol

Posted by Elena on Sunday, 08.10.14 @ 12:03pm

Used to love Taylor.beautiful-Explosive voice. Awesome love songs. Yes, yes.

Posted by Elena on Sunday, 08.10.14 @ 12:13pm

Leave your comment:




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.