The Cure

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 2003 (The 2004 Induction Ceremony)

Nominated in: 2012   

Previously Considered? Yes  what's this?


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 2004 (ranked #62) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Seventeen Seconds (1980)
Pornography (1982)
Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me (1987)
Disintegration (1989)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Boys Don't Cry (1979)
A Forest (1980)
In-Between Days (1985)
Close to Me (1985)
Just Like Heaven (1987)
Pictures of You (1989)
Love Song (1989)
Lullaby (1989)
Friday, I'm in Love (1992)

The Cure @ Wikipedia

The Cure Videos

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

Comments

150 comments so far (post your own)

They are not in yet?

Posted by Ryan Gibbs on Tuesday, 10.3.06 @ 08:55am


They should be in.

Posted by Jason on Monday, 01.1.07 @ 10:43am


A no brainer. They should have been in on the first ballot. Once the hall feels ready to open the door to the new wave bands (besides the Police) the first band in should be The Cure. They are without a doubt the goth giants.

Posted by lightninli on Sunday, 01.7.07 @ 00:48am


These guys practically ushered in a whole genre and managed to be one of the easiest acts to stomach in it. They REALLY deserve it. If bands like REM can make it (and they were similar in their early years) then Robert and his bunch deserve it just as much.

Posted by Josh L. on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 17:59pm


Robert Smith's image overshadows the band's music in many eyes, I'm sure. That is a shame... they have influenced so many bands, it is criminal that they have not even been nominated!

Posted by Marc on Saturday, 02.10.07 @ 14:44pm


This is a question I have, whenever I mention the Rock Hall, attracted my attention - probably because I assumed that bands became eligible 25 years after their first American release, they would have only been eligible in the 2005 induction ceremony.

The fact that The Cure have not been nominated so far does not mean they will not be inducted. Many of their early albums did not make the Billboard Top 200, but they were such a major force in music during the late 1980s and early 1990s that their chance of being inducted in the 2010s is considerable.

Posted by taite on Monday, 02.19.07 @ 17:46pm


I would think they would be inducted at some point. You would need some new blood on the Committee, though. Some people who have a much better understanding and less dismissive attitude about 80's music generally. The Cure, The Smiths, Depeche Mode...all need serious consideration, but the current membership on the Board that decides these things think that rock ended around 1980.

Posted by Dezmond on Tuesday, 02.20.07 @ 09:11am


They should be in by now. Their music has lived on and there's been a huge-ass amount of bands that've been influenced by them. Same goes with D.Mode

Posted by maplejet on Tuesday, 02.27.07 @ 11:12am


The Cure is the, THE, most influential band in the history of "alternative" music. While certainly being influenced by Nick Drake and (particularly, as different as they sound) Pink Floyd, The Cure brought to the table the use of repetition that has engendered the best music of this generation. Their interweaving multiple instrumental melody lines, their layers of texture, the beauty and depth of Smith's poetry, the quirkiness and humor of his lyrics; the inspired vocal stylings...Without The Cure, as we know them there would be no Modest Mouse, no Mogwai, no Lush, no Yo La Tengo, no Sigur Ros, no Pixies, on and on. And anyway, if the only album they'd ever release was "Disintegration", that would be enough for them to deserve entry. (Of course, the RnRHoF is a bit of a joke, so I'm not sure it really matters at all.)

Posted by -G- on Wednesday, 03.14.07 @ 04:12am


ROBERT SMITH IS GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE CURE ROCKSSSS

Posted by KEN on Wednesday, 03.14.07 @ 08:11am


If they're not inducted The Cure fans around the globe will start a riot including me. boo ya!

Posted by Anna on Thursday, 03.15.07 @ 17:49pm


Definitely put them in along with The Smiths and Depeche Mode....all highly innovative and influential bands

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 03.15.07 @ 21:32pm


Not having The Cure in the Hall of Fame is a travesty and shows just what a joke the whole thing is. It’s just like any other awards show, and says as much about those doing the nominating and voting as it does about the actual musicians. Maybe more.

Robert Smith and his mates have been making great music for over 30 years. The Cure are like the Rolling Stones with talent.

Posted by Chris on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 11:38am


They should have been in already. Despite Robert Smith's "now tired" goth look, he is a brilliant songwriter and musician. He has been very devoted to making music and touring for nearly 30 years. Induct The Cure!!!

Posted by George on Friday, 03.30.07 @ 21:33pm


They're one of the most defining, biggest selling and highest charting bands in alternative rock. You could make the argument that they're one of the FOUNDERS of Alternative rock (they formed - and released an album before R.E.M. did)

Posted by Ryan Gibbs on Saturday, 05.19.07 @ 13:47pm


Would the Bon Jovi people mind doing the same thing for The Cure? A band that is way more deserving and should be in the Hall already. I would do it but I am not nearly as talented at hitting YES 200 or 300 times. Many thanks and Have a nice day

Posted by PJ on Wednesday, 05.23.07 @ 15:50pm


come on guys, "boys don't cry", "just like heaven", "a forest" etc, they're all classics

Posted by yomero on Monday, 07.16.07 @ 21:30pm


almost every band of the 80's, 90's and even 00's are heavily influenced by The Cure; it is a curse word that they're not in.

Smith is a pop icon

Posted by krazy pig on Monday, 07.16.07 @ 21:36pm


The Cure is one of the more egregious omissions so far by the RRHOF.

Posted by Dezmond on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 07:47am


True, but there are other much worse "misses"

Posted by Anon on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 12:58pm


"True, but there are other much worse "misses"

So what, so what, so what?!!
And in this room, The Cure is the subject at hand.

Gezus H. Anon, everything does not have to circle back to Rush. (or Moody/Kiss/Purple..)

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 14:33pm


The Cure are at the front of the line as far as post-punk is concerned.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 17:08pm


I love the Cure - I just think there are other "misses" in front of them - spare me the dramatics please...

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 22:16pm


In the realm of post-punk, that is, the microcosm we must view The Cure through the context of, no, there aren't any misses ahead of them. Maybe you could make a case for Joy Division. Maybe. But you can't induct both at the same time because that would be amazingly depressing.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 22:36pm


Sure, there are obvious "subgenres" in music, but we need to look at the big picture. There are innumerable other acts in "Rock" due in way before The Cure. As I have seen someone say, "Get in line boys."

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 07.18.07 @ 09:16am


Do you enjoy not getting things?

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 07.18.07 @ 18:12pm


"There are innumerable other acts in "Rock" due in way before The Cure."

Wrong. "Innumerable" is over grossly overstating it in regards to The Cure, even if you insist on ignoring the context of post-punk that Kit is trying to lay out here. Even over the entire landscape of all rock genres I'd propose that there are only a few acts that merit induction "Way before" The Cure.
Who do you thnik they might be? Opinions? In order, who deserves it just before Cure? Who are THE most egregious orphans so far?
Stooges? King Crimson? Not.....

But, yea - it's a shame the the context thing was lost on ya Anon.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 07.18.07 @ 19:26pm


Why do I not get things? I get it quite clearly. Sure, within the "postpunk" genre, the Cure is in front - I agree and see that. I was merely pointing out that there are other snubs, in GENERAL, that are due in before the Cure. True maybe not "innumerable", but there are enough. Again, I was only speaking in general.

When they induct into the hall, it is an induction of a "Rock" band. They do not induct in by categories. In fact, if they did, there would be progressive in there. As for which bands, deserve it before the Cure. The Cure were essentially an 80's band (with their first album out in 1979). Lets see, others ahead of them:

Moody Blues (First album out in 1965)
Rush (First album out in 1974)
Jethro Tull (First album out in 1968)
Cat Stevens (First album out in 1967)
Genesis (First album out in 1969)
Deep Purple (First album out in 1968)
Judas Priest (First album out in 1974)...etc.

I just think that bands from the 60's and 70's who were influential and innovative should go in before the Cure. Again, I like the Cure a lot, but, "get in line boys."

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.18.07 @ 21:18pm


None of those bands are the biggest standout in their respective subgenres as The Cure is. None of them have anywhere near the influence on popular culture and music The Cure had. Therefore, "get in line, boys." Said line forms behind The Cure.

ps: Cat Stevens? You're kidding me.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 07.18.07 @ 22:58pm


That is nothing more than your opinion. And, of course I wholeheartedly disagree. While I am a fan of the Cure, an 80's "post punk" band needs to get in line behind some of the giants of rock and heavy metal from the 60's and 70's. But, that will never happen because the hall has a tendency to let in punk type bands, and essentially disregard heavy metal and progressive...oh well..that is what makes the hall not an institution to be taken that seriously and a "piss stain."

As for Cat Stevens...I think he deserved it...I take it you don't like him?

Posted by Anon on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 08:34am


And, BTW, many of the bands I listed were at the forefront of their respective genres - the Moody Blues, not influential? - c'mon.

That may be the biggest snub of the hall. Judas Priest was one of the most influential heavy metal bands behind Black Sabbath and Purple.

Deep Purple: "Deep Purple are an English hard rock band formed in Hertfordshire in 1968. Along with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath, they are considered one of the pioneers of heavy metal and hard rock.....They have sold over 100 million albums worldwide" (Wikipedia)

Posted by Anon on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 08:45am


This is kind of a silly argument. We agree that there are a handful (or maybe more than a handful) of egregious omissions so far in the RRHOF. Now we are basically arguing over a matter of degree.

Suffice it to say that I cannot think of any band that is MORE of an egregious omission than the Cure. The Cure are simply one of the most influential and important bands from the 80's on. Other omissions that are close or the same level as The Cure? I'd go with my list of usual suspects: Yes, King Crimson, Peter Gabriel, Genesis, Kiss, Rush. Perhaps The Stooges. I'd like to see Dire Straits in there as well, but objectively speaking, perhaps they are not quite as important as these others. after that, I'd get Judas Priest in there. I really don't like Deep Purple, but I have to admit they deserve a spot. The Moodys too. Maybe Tull.

But, none of those exceed the importance of The Cure.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 08:59am


That is only your opinion and I disagree. I listed some "pioneering" bands. Sorry, the Cure were good, but they are from the 80's. In any event, my point was really more of a temporal one...but I think that has been lost here.

You honestly would say that of all the bands that have been snubbed thus far, you would put the Cure at the top?

Now this is turning interesting. Here is an idea - let everyone put together a "snub" list in RANK order. That is, from the MOST EGREGIOUS snubs to the least....I would be curious what people see as the most glaring snubs...type away mates!

Posted by Anon on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 09:12am


Well, if you are looking at influence, yes. I don't see any other band more influential than The Cure on the outside still looking in.

Good question you pose. My list:

1. The Cure (guess I have to stick with my position)
2. Peter Gabriel
3. Yes
4. Genesis
5. Kiss
6. Rush
7. King Crimson
8. Judas Priest
9. Stooges
10. Jeff Beck

Also: Thin Lizzy, Dire Straits, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Joy Division, New Order (are they eligible yet?), The Cars, Mellencamp...I'm probably forgetting some obvious ones. But those are the ones off the top of my head.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 17:56pm


I don't mind Cat Stevens, but he's hardly what comes to my mind when I think of the Hall of Fame.

A snub ranking, eh? Let's see what we can come up with...subject to change on the slightest breeze:

The Cure
King Crimson
Alice Cooper
T-Rex
Roxy Music
Brian Eno
Gram Parsons
Big Star
The Stooges
Minor Threat (not a snub yet, but I'm predicting the future)

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 18:03pm


Dammit. I knew I'd forget some snubs. OK, After my main list, the RRHOF should go back and also reconsider some of the following:

T-Rex, Big Star, Steve Miller Band, Sonny Boy Williamson (as Early Influence), Willie Nelson, The Ventures, Dick Dale, Moody Blues, Randy Newman, Love, MC5, Steppenwolf, Alice Cooper, Chicago, Nick Drake, Steve Winwood, Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, (seriously), Ozzy, INXS, Hall & Oates, Lou Reed, Blue Oyster Cult, Roxy Music and/or Bryan Ferry, Eno, Rick James, Psychedelic Furs...

I'm not saying they all get in. But each deserves more consideration than I am sure the Committee gave. Oh, and each of these are more deserving than Percy Sledge.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 18:10pm


Here is my list:

1) The Moody Blues (such longevity and influence. I do not even personally like them that much, but they have been around for like 40 years. Sure they are dinosaurs, but c'mon).
2) Deep Purple (staple and "pioneer" of heavy metal)
3) Rush (Well, you all know - and yes I did not put them first, see I can be somewhat objective).
4) Judas Priest
5) Yes
6) The Cure
6) Genesis
7) King Crimson
8) Jethro Tull
9) Cat Stevens (I agree that he is not a "major" snub, but I think he deserves it - he was huge at one point).
10) The Smiths
11) Depeche Mode

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 18:37pm


The Smiths aren't eligible so they aren't a snub...yet.

Also, since rap is in the hall (whether we like that or not), why not give them an early influence inductee as well? I'm thinking Gil Scott-Heron.

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 07.19.07 @ 19:03pm


Dezmond and Anon: Does Yes, Genesis, and Rush being higher on your snub lists than King Crimson have to do with their better commercial success?
I'm asking because I always thought that KC was at the forefront of prog pioneers.
I am not protesting your rankings necessarily, I am just curious about your thought process when weighing them all.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 00:29am


Moody Blues
Chicago *
ELP
Steppenwolf
Tood Rundgren
Neil Diamond
King Crimson
Brian Eno
Jan & Dean
Petula Clark

* = Not A Big Fan


And if "being huge at one point" is reason enough, then throw in Three Dog Night and The Guess Who.

Posted by SG on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 00:35am


For me it is simple. I am a bigger Rush fan (obviously I am biased, I know that) and I think they are "better" than KC in many ways, one of which is commerically, the other is with their overall sound. Of course that part is nothing more than personal preference. But, you are right that KC is considered at the "forefront" as you say.

Hey, SG put the Moody's at the top...see at least one person agrees with me...

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 05:50am


Good question, shawn. And I thought about when ranking my snub list. Commercial success, no question. All three were much more commercially relevant than KC. You cannot take away KC's pioneering status in prog rock, but at the same time, I think Yes and Genesis were almost equally pioneering in their own way and how they developed their sounds. KC was one of the ones who opened the door, but Yes and Genesis were also both there essentially at the beginning. (Rush a little less pioneering, but great in other ways).

In the end, while many people in the know appreciate KC and were influenced by them, I feel the overall impact of Genesis and Yes were, overall, greater. They not only helped to create the template for prog rock (as KC did), but a much larger number of people listened to Yes and Genesis than listened to KC, and therefore my feeling is that Yes and Genesis had a bigger impact. I mean, we are comparing giants with giants here anyway. All four (Yes, Genesis, KC and Rush) are titans in their field. So it is a matter of degree.

Posted by Dezmond on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 09:07am


...And the bottom line is that it is absurd that all four (Yes, Genesis, KC, Rush) are not already in the RRHOF anyway. And The Cure. And Peter Gabriel as a solo artist. And Jeff Beck. And...

Posted by Dezmond on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 09:10am


Good points Dez...the more I think about it...Shawn and Kit are probably right though. As much as I am a huge Rush fan, if I "step back" I would have to admit that KC was at the forefront of progressive rock and should probably be in first before latter bands, like Yes, Rush, Genesis, etc. But, I think like Dez said, the most important point is that they are all big bands with longevity, influence, etc. and at this point NONE are in....it really makes the hall look bad. I genuinely believe that when you leave out so many pioneering and big bands from the 60's and 70's, the hall loses some credibility. And, everyone knows (like the pink elephant in the room), a lot of it has to do with personal vendettas, personal preference, etc. I wish the hall were a bit more objective and it did not have to be so "personal." I think the hall would gain a lot more credibility..

Posted by Anon on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 10:11am


Dez: "Genesis and Yes were, overall, greater. They not only helped to create the template for prog rock (as KC did), but a much larger number of people listened to (them) than listened to KC, and therefore my feeling is that Yes and Genesis had a bigger impact."

I gotta shine the light on this idea a little longer because it goes so fundamentaly to the heart of so much of what we debate here!

Dezmond muses here on the elusive issue of how relevant commercial success is in determinig an artist's "significance", at least in Hall of Fame terms.
Does the fact that one act, from generallly the same genre, reached more ears mean that they had a "bigger impact"? It seems like a natural conclusion. At least it does in the context of putting bands and artists side by side, when most of the other criteria are about equal.

It seems fairly logical to think that if Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson are all prog icons and none were garbage, then the ones who acheived a wider audience of listeners may have more "impact" and hence merit an induction before the more obscure one.

Deosn't proposing that The Cure proceed before Joy Division
or The Clash before MC5
or Pink Floyd before KC
or Metallica before Deep Purple
or R.E.M. before Husker Du or Wire or Gram Parsons or Big Star also support this philosophy?

I am not suggesting by any means that commercial success should be the paramount measuring stick, but maybe it is, honestly, more consequential than we concede.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 12:12pm


I think the answer might be that commercial success can be a factor, the other factors being equal. Shawn basically said it, but assuming you are comparing two bands that both pioneered in their genre, influenced lots of other musicians who came after...but one also was much more successful commercially than the other? Then I might give the edge to the one who managed to be influencial and musically relevant...and who also reached a huge audience.

But if you've got a situation where one band was innovative, pioneering, and influenced other musicians but was not commercially big vs. a fairly bland rock band that hit the big time, you definitely go with the influence and innovation.

So, commercial success is a factor, but not as important as some other factors. That is how I see it.

Posted by Dezmond on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 14:45pm


Dez said it right. Naturally, to some degree success (commerically that is) comes into play. For me, the ultimate band is one that is both influential or innovative and commerically successful. Those are the giants of rock music -for instance, see Police, U2, Zeppelnin, The Who, Beatles, etc.

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 17:00pm


This assumes that all the people who listened to them also went out and started a band. That's why there's no direct connection between commercial success and influence. Most music consumers are not musicians.

Posted by William on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 23:33pm


It assumes nothing...your points are true but obvious. They are obviously mutually exclusive categories. My point was that the "giants" of music are those that are BOTH influential and commercially successful - a rare combo.

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 07.21.07 @ 06:48am


" That's why there's no direct connection between commercial success and influence. Most music consumers are not musicians."

I get this point you've made many times William, and the 1st sentence is 100% true IF you accept the premise that the Hall's definition of Influence does mean that the music in question gives other musicians a boner.

I understand that this is your paradigm... I've just never been completely convinced that the maxim of Influence here is that definitive.

Is it possible that influence extends to influencing 100's of smalltime bar bands that never are documented or considered, or that it can also mean "influencing" people to surrender their $15 in exchange for 10 songs in a slim plastic box? Seriously; I'm not being coy.

But further than that, how can we assume the proportional power that Influence, even your musician-to-musician model, holds in weighing artists? I mean, all of the printed criteria I have seen uses vague, subjective terms like this:

"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist’s CONTRIBUTIONS to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll"

Holy crap - that is about as broad and undefined as you can get, isn't it? They use the word Influence, yes, but only as a modifier of the catch-all word Contributions. And Significance - who's to say what that means?

The word Influence (along with Innovation) acheives its rumored Holy Grail staus only from that bromide form letter people get back when the write in to bitch about stuff:

"..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."

What does Impact mean? And I & I of these artists... on what? Other artists? - maybe; or is that assumptive?
Influence on Rock in general, as an abstract concept... well?

That's all I'm saying, and why I don't necessarily assume Influence of other Musicians as dogma.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 07.21.07 @ 16:15pm


Great thoughts, guys.

I didn't think I'd ever read such an erudite analysis
like this on a rock forum.

I think the concept of influence is a little overemphasized. Just because an artist on the radio is heard by someone else who might be "influenced" to look at music a certain way or write music a certain way doesn't necessarily
mean that the artist on the radio is the true influence. What if the artist on the radio like Pearl Jam is imitating another artist from say 20 years earlier like Led Zep , but the person listening just doesn't know that. Then does the artist playing on the radio then really deserve to be credited for their "influence?" I don't think so.

Posted by SG on Saturday, 07.21.07 @ 21:24pm


I have to agree with William here. At least for me, the term "influence" means to other rock artists or musicians. It does not mean the general buying public. If the latter were the definition, then every band would be seen as influential.

What influential means, at least as I see it, is that bands or musicians listen to one particular artist and become insipired by the artist. So, for instance, as a Rush fan, Rush often cites Zeppelin, Cream and the Who as bands that originally influenced them (at least in the very early years) to play a bluesy metal / rock type sound. So, basically that is what influence means.

It is not, however, someone buying a CD and pretending to sing in front of a mirror with a hairbrush. If that were the criteria, then every band would be considered influential and HOF material, as I am sure there are plenty of shmucks out there listening to Creed and prancing around.

As for the vagueness of the term influential, that I would agree. First, you have to define what is influential (which I tried to do). Second, and I think the harder part (in most instances) is to quantify the influence, and third decide is that enough to warrant induction. Of course for most bands, not all, this becomes more subjective and difficult to define and quantify. Of course bands like The Who, Rolling Stones, Zep, etc. were "no-brainers", but since most of these "giants" of rock are already in, the influence issue becomes much more vague and more difficult to figure out.

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 07.21.07 @ 22:14pm


" At least for me, the term "influence" means to other rock artists or musicians. It does not mean the general buying public."

OK, fine - I didn't really buy into that improbable theory either. But I highly suspect that that form letter's reference to "Influence" simply meant on Rock over all as an entity. If they had meant Influence specifically on other musicians, why would they not have made that very clear?
"Influence" can quite likely just be another way of being very ambiguous - another synonym for "Significance, Impact, Contribution, etc."

I think there was an assumptive leap made there, by those of us who were looking for some confirmation that our fervent beliefs that the less heralded indie/underground bands are the true and only musical dieties worthy of praise and Rock Hall recognition.

If you would put Pavement or Dinosaur Jr. in before Steve Miller Band, or My Bloody Valentine in before Hall and Oates or The Jam in before The Doobie Brothers... then you probably subscribe to the circle-jerk-musicians-Influence hypothesis.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 07.22.07 @ 12:35pm


Well, influencing other musicians is really the only way you CAN make an impact. Even if you invent a whole new sound, and millions of people buy your albums, but no one ever tries to copy or expand on what you did, where's the impact?

Posted by William on Sunday, 07.22.07 @ 16:21pm


I think Shawn's point is that "influence" is a vague term as used by the HOF. I have made the point for Cat Stevens for hall induction. So, his influence has certainly been on fans - not sure about musicians nor do I care. His soul searching lyrics (i.e. father and son, where do the children play, etc.) have impacted literally millions of people (i.e. fans), have made people think and examine their own lives in a deeper manner - if that is not influential, then I do not know what is. I think you can have a profound impact and be influential without having other musicians try to mimic or borrow from you. Whether his "influence" on fans qualifies him for HOF induction is another completely different story.

In any event, the HOF website IS indeed vague with regards to influence, and I guess it is for THEM to define because they control the "gates" in to that institution. Again, though, I think for the most part, it does mean impacting and shaping rock in terms of influencing other artists / musicians.

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 07.22.07 @ 19:57pm


"Influence" is a vague term. Anonymous, I like what you said, but I tend to think that by Influence they are indeed talking about influencing the music, as in influencing later musicians and sounds (or lyrics).

But way back when when I was saying that I give the edge slightly to Yes and Genesis over King Crimson on my snub list, and the reason I gave was that Yes and Genesis probably reached a much larger audience, in that larger audience I include future musicians as well. Fans and musicians. So my ranking makes sense whether you take the William or the Anonymous definition of "Influence". For what that's worth.

I think that Anonymous' explanation is still a legitimate factor, I guess it is closely tied to commercial success in a way, but honestly not as important as innovation and influence (as I defined it). That is my take.

You know, I was thinking that we'd have a much better Rock and Roll Hall of Fame if the regular contributors to this website were on the Committee vs. the ass clowns who are currently there! How much fun would that be? We all sit around some big table and argue music all day!

Posted by Dezmond on Monday, 07.23.07 @ 08:26am


"Well, influencing other musicians is really the only way you CAN make an impact.
..if.. no one ever tries to copy or expand on what you did, where's the impact?"

That seems rather myopic to me, William.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 07.23.07 @ 15:26pm


How is it myopic? In what way do you have real, lasting impact on music as a whole if no one tries to expand on what you've done? Music has a genealogy. If you turn out to be an evolutionary dead end, then that's it. You were there. You're gone. You'll be forgotten in time. It's like dying without children. A poster is not influence. A band t-shirt is not influence. Sound influences sound.

Posted by William on Monday, 07.23.07 @ 23:18pm


It is myopic William, because for the type of Rock Hall we have here, your screening method is understood and meant for too select of an audience who have the special knowledge and interest that you do. In a word, your criteria is too esoteric for a populist oriented Hall of Fame.

I completely respect am in in awe of yours and Kit's vast knowledge, but the kind of Hall you champion is really a Musician's Rock HOF - made by and made for musicians. That is a commendable idea and one I wish would ALSO exist In that Hall Joy Division and The Jesus and Mary Chain and Brian Eno and Gang of Four and Nick Drake are no brainers and nobody even speaks about those hack-fucks KISS or Bon Jovi.

But this species of R&R Hall has got to house a very wide swath of artists, predominantly the readily identifiable ones to your average citizen to be interesting and therefore relevant to them; consider your audience here, Wiiliam. Who is this Hall supposed to appeal to?

If this is unappealing to accept, then let's start discussing the merits of an alternative, Musician captained Hall of Fame where bands and artists are measured by their geneology, as you put it.

I believe the current Hall can be a good balance and start inducting more "underground" icons like Husker Du and Kraftwerk, but it's always going to come up short and share the wealth with those less deserving in your eyes. That doesn't nullify it (but I do agree the Hall has its head up its ass to date).

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 14:02pm


"In what way do you have real, lasting impact on music as a whole if no one tries to expand on what you've done?"

Because "Impact" means a whole spectrum of things, doesn't it? Take The Doobie Brothers, who I know I am rather alone in advocating. From '72 through '80 this band produced a dozen of the most beloved, most ubiquitous, 70's soundtrack songs; absolute staples that are instantly recognizable and elicit fond nostalgia. That is impact ... significance. I could choose to go into the value of their albums as larger works, say something about their overall sound, maybe live performances, I dunno... but it's not really necessary.

They acheived a level of success and accolade that earns them consideration. Then what? Were they manufactured shit? Were they insincere, crass marketing fast-food music, such as we have with Britney Spears or the worst of 80's Hair Metal? That breed of product forfeits its right to be honored, I believe. The answer with Doobies is no. Was it one hit wonder stautus? No.
Does it have a lasting presence in the musical world? Sure it does.

And that's where we see it differently. I still don't even see how you can definitively surmise so much of "Influence/Impact" from musician to musician. As I said, how many bar band or amateur level musicians with a guitar have the Doobies inspired since 1971? We'll never be able to quantify that, and who are we to dismiss that notion? Who are we decide when a musician in the world "matters". These deeply "underground" music eaters are out there in the galaxy too, whether they have liner notes or not.

And what about those documented kudos to other musicians as influences, inspirations or impactors? What the fuck can that mean? Does it have to mean they tune their guitars in a similar key, use similar time signatures or glean chord structures off of their mentor? How many songs did that tranpose onto? 1? Is One enough to be stamped "INFLUENCE" and matter?
What if by "an influence" that artist meant they just were just spirited into taking up an instrument, but they never attempted to, as you say, "..tr(y) to copy or expand on what (they) did".
Where is the direct correlation of sound evolution in that color of Impact/Influence?
That's an abstract, inexact degree of seperation, but impact nonetheless.

Besides, how much can you fucking imitate another's sound anyway before you are just aping them? Take The Pixies, Husker Du, Sonic Youth and The Meat Puppets: who influenced who? Who gets credit for spawning Dinosaur Jr? It's wa y to speculative and inexact and muddy and fucking presumtuous to define such things anymore; music has fanned out and has too many tentacles, too many sub-sub-sub genres and cousins and stepchildren to map anything anymore.


Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 14:59pm


I do not care about "underground" status. It has always been irrelevant to me. The Hall as it is sucks because it is a tourist trap, not a museum, which it should be.

As for the clusterfuck you describe, the correct answer is that many of them inspired one another as contemporaries, so in that they are all significant.

If you think it's too much work to bother mapping it, fine, don't do it, but I just don't see how you can abandon any sort of objective standard and still have a museum worth having. Maybe building a decent Rock Hall of Fame is an impossible task, but your approach doesn't make it any easier.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 15:41pm


"The Hall..sucks because it is..not a museum, which it should be."

A museum, indeed; and a museum of history chronicles the times it records as they unfolded, both wretched and sublime, without judgment of quality. The question of inclusion would be simply one of notoriety.... existence.
But since the Rock "Museum" is a trophy case and worthiness is weighed by artistic value, let's be honest that this comes down to taste and not cloak that fact in justifications about "Influence" and "Impact", because that is too elusive, undefinable and wildly subjective to pretend like artists can be plugged into it like an equation.

You have not addressed that concept or the point I made about the trouble with defining musician to musician impact, anyway.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 17:21pm


"because that is too elusive, undefinable and wildly subjective to pretend like artists can be plugged into it like an equation."


Uh, yea....I totally agree, and I said that a long time ago....music is art and art is subjective. That goes to points I made earlier...sure the Rock Hall of Fame is a fun idea and fun for fans and rock historians. But, what is it really - just someone's opinion about what they like and what they think is influential. Sure there has to be some agreement between a bunch of judges, which does make it a bit more on target. But, still it is just what they like. How many times have you heard a movie critic bash a movie you love? Competition within the arts is a bit silly, as I have said (i.e. which band is "more" influential or more innovative).

I am not saying we should totally discard or disregard the HOF. It is fun and interesting, but please do not take such an institution that seriously...please

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 17:44pm


BTW, one more thing. Shawn made a great point...measuring influence is quite difficult. Not in all cases, but in many. Were the Doobie Brothers influential. I am sure you could find a bunch of bar bands, as Shawn puts it, or some bigger artists that would say the Doobies influenced them...So, by that standard they should be in...

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 17:46pm


Making these determinations is difficult, I agree. But as William said, I don't see why we shouldn't try. The whole fall-back "well, art is all subjective anyway" argument is kind of a cop-out. It is easy to be objective on the extremes (The Beatles, objectively, are "better", more innovative and more influential than Britney Spears). Obviously it gets more difficult and somewhat subjective in between those extremes. But it is a cop-out to just throw up our hands and say, "oh well, it is all a matter of taste".

The people at the Hall of Fame should (I stress SHOULD) be informed and expert enough to analyze the history and impact better than most and create a fairly representative history of this music. It will never be perfect and never satisfy everyone, but it should be close to definitive as far as weeding out the true greats. The Hall of Fame as it is now gets some of it right and some of it way wrong (as far as some of their inductees and some of those still not in), it should be better. Like I said, I bet the handful of the regular contributors at this site could sit down and probably hash out a better roster than who is currently in the HOF.

I also stress there is a difference between bands we like vs. bands we feel deserve induction. That is a distinction that MANY folks on this site fail to comprehend (SEE recent Def Leppard posts). I have quite a few bands that I really like, bands that personally I would rather listen to than many HOF inductees, but I still understand that they should not be inducted into the Hall of Fame. (Hell, an argument could even be made for Def Leppard induction, but that would have to be a long conversation and they are borderline at best.)

Posted by Dezmond on Wednesday, 07.25.07 @ 08:35am


I am always struck by that article (it is posted somewhere on this site) where an anonymous former member of the Nominating Committee was trying to bring up a discussion about The Moody Blues (I believe), and Jon Landau shot down even discussing them. Landau asked: "Do you like them?" The Committee member said that he personally did not, but they should still be discussed. Landau then ended all discussion on The Moody Blues.

How can Landau and others be such idiots? It should not be a list of the Committee's favorite bands. I mean, that seems obvious even to me. There are many artists and bands that I do not like very much, but that I understand need to be in the Hall of Fame.

Posted by Dezmond on Wednesday, 07.25.07 @ 09:00am


Listen, I wholeheartedly concur with some model of an objective gauge that includes complex levers and multiple blood tests. I'm not proffering a philosophy of "let-em-all-in".

My point is that the Barometer we keep using around here currently doesn't work right; it does not detect the full spray pattern of an artist/band's Influence, much less their Impact, and consequently it unfairly designates many artists as insignificant. Childless parents, as William puts it.

Imitated sound, emulated style we can hear, liner note references, and credit given in interviews are all hard scientific proof - the kind that William recognizes.

But THAT regimented canon of "objective" standard is actually skewed and rigid to the fault of being discriminatory. You can't track and tag-and-bag a lot (maybe even most?) of the wild breeds of Influence; Impact - whoo-boy - that's even more of a Monsoon. Our need to feel like we've got it figured out can make us into unwitting fools.

Again, I dare us to be very honest: a band/artist does not have to be christened in the Church of Pitchfork to be worthy of Hall recognition.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 07.25.07 @ 09:53am


Morrissey - "The Cure: a new dimension to the word crap"

stupid pop scum called the cure should not be put in museums.

the south park appearance really did it for me. they were ok before that 'happened'

Posted by liam on Saturday, 09.15.07 @ 16:32pm


Wow, I did some research and Morrisey really did call the Cure crap - I guess he does not think they were snubbed by the RRHOF

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 09.22.07 @ 23:55pm


i doubt its got anything to do with the hall. Probably something to do with what their drummer said about him. Or it could be the other way around.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 09.23.07 @ 07:08am


Morissey has called pretty much everyone crap at one point or another. He does not play well with the other children.

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 09.23.07 @ 14:47pm


No doubt about it, The Cure should have been in the day the doors to the HoF opened.
No one who is a fan can disagree that this is a life changing, genre influencing band.

Posted by Lori on Sunday, 11.25.07 @ 18:24pm


If the Cure do not get in it will just prove what a sham the hall of fame is.

Posted by Jim on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:42am


"Sure, there are obvious "subgenres" in music, but we need to look at the big picture."

Anyone who thinks that post-punk is a 'subgenre', and not the huge impact on music that it was, needs to be shot. Even more so than those who call MCR "emo".

Luckily he is gone, for now, and he is so incessantly thick that he's be recognised immediately.

Posted by liam on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:47am


this is the band. they need to be in next cycle.

Posted by gary on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 11:57am


Completely agree, gary.
I'd put the 2009 nominations together as such:

- 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, Gram Parsons
(voters instructed to choose 2 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.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 12:17pm


Maybe this lot should be considered aswell:

Buzzcocks, Echo & The Bunnymen, Roxy Music, Coteau Twins, Bad Brains, Deep Purple, ELO, BOC, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Squeeze, Kate Bush, The Human League, PiL, Black Flag, Iron Maiden, Gang of Four, New Order, The B-52's, Duran Duran, Eurythmics.

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 12:38pm


All worthy of consideration to my mind, liam, and I'd be interested to know how you would change my list, and also if you agree with the format I proposed, categorizing and forcing voters to induct from a preselected pool of those categories.

I chose Joy Division over Gang of Four as my last post-punk pioneer, but would include Gof4 the next year to take up one of the two vacant slots.

I think here in the States the best New Order could hope for would be to ride along as "co-inductee" with Joy Division. Don't ream me - I know you adore them, but there is a vast difference in how their significance level in the U.S. versus in the U.K., and it is an American institute after all. That's the main reason most of the Brit-Pop groups you like don't really stand a chance, unless one year a sepertae category was made for them, which would be a good idea eventually for the Hall to be well rounded.

Thanks for mentioning Roxy Music; I would trade out maybe Joe Cocker or Chicago for them at first; my bad.

I made the conscious choice to leave out heavy metal this time, and would include that category for 2010 in place of prog. Would probably include:
(choose 1 or 2 from:)Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Deep Purple, (others?)..

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 12:50pm


I agree with Joy Division over Gang Of Four, as I think that ian Curtis' group had more impact than GO4, and because I think that JD actually stands a better chance.

Don't worry, I know full well that New Order doesn't stand much of a chance over there. I'd still like to see them at least considered, though.

As for britpop, the only group that actually stands a chance would be Oasis, not for artistic merit, but simply becuase thy are the only ones to make any real impact and (from what I've heard) they are a household name in the States. Although, if the HoF ignores Britpop completely, then they are essentially ignoring around 20 years of UK mainstream, and that JUST wouldn't do ;)
Here's my sets, sticking to your "nominate 5, induct 2" method:

Punk/Post Punk:
Buzzcocks, Joy Division (& New Order), Buzzcocks, Siouxsie & The Banshees, The Cure

Metal & Hard Rock:
BOC, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Rush

CBA doing any others, and I'd agree with most of yours.

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:08pm


I'd replace Depeche Mode with the Buzzcocks, because I'd say more artists owe Shelley and Devoto than DM.

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:11pm


Liam, you get 1 more nominee in Metal and 2 more in Post-punk, as my model was 2 of 6, and you also listed Buzzcocks twice.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:11pm


Hahahaha, I'm stupid.

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:12pm


Ok for metal, I pick Judas Priest

And for Post Punk, I would put Wire and the Damned

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:18pm


"I'd replace Depeche Mode with the Buzzcocks, because I'd say more artists owe Shelley and Devoto than DM." -liam

Really? Maybe so with the Buzzcock's blend of pop and punk, but here in the states Depeche Mode is pretty widely heralded as a holy icon of synth-pop/new wave/alternative/electronica dance.
Probably second only to The Cure in stature as alternative/post-punk/new wave gods. The Buzzcocks are kind of obscure... relatively speaking.

Since the Buzzcocks started out so much earlier in the mid-70's, would it be proper to put them alongside more proto-punk acts like The Stooges, MC5, Siouxsie & the Banshees and The Damned?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:23pm


I'd rather see the Buzzcocks inducted, to be honest, no matter how obscure the US mainstream sees them, because I really think that their impact is greater than that of DM, and because the Ramones, the other majot player in pop punk, have been inducted.

"Since the Buzzcocks started out so much earlier in the mid-70's, would it be proper to put them alongside more proto-punk acts like The Stooges, MC5, Siouxsie & the Banshees and The Damned?"

I don't know, really. I think it's got t a point where the Hall thinks that it's done with Punk (not post punk), and I reckon the Buzzcocks will get left behind.

:(

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:37pm


Then we should implement a proto-punk category the next year!
choose 2 of these 6:
- Buzzcocks, Stooges, MC5, Siouxsie/Banshees, The Damned or Wire.

Then the next year, 1 of the remaining 4 the and so on in alternating years until all are inducted.

For a Brit-pop category, let me guess who you'd nominate, besides Oasis who should get a nomination on their own:
Blur, Pulp, The Charlatans, Happy Mondays, Supergrass and The Verve.

How'd I do?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:48pm


Shit - can't believe I forgot The Jam in the proto-punk category! Who would they replace of the 6?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:50pm


Hmmm. I actually think that a Britpop selection would be wasted on the voters: I doubt any of them have even heard of the likes of Supergrass, and Blur are one hit wonders over there, so the voters might just end up picking a random vote. I'd actually do it like this, without Oasis:

Blur, The Verve, Suede, Manic Street Preachers, Stone Roses and Happy Mondays.

I don't think that Supergrass has left enough of an impression yet, so they wouldn't go in my first set of six nominations, but they were , and are, definitely one of the best groups out there. Give 'em a few years; they've still got it....

The Charlatans are generally seen as Madchester also rans (even though they are STILL going strong), and their influence isn't great enough in my opinion, so it'll be no hall for them.

The La's might also deserve influence, since their eponymous debut is seen as one of the first Britpop albums, along with Suede's "Suede". The problem is that they (La's) only have one album, and are seen as one-hit wonders over here ("There She Goes").

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 13:59pm


I'd put the Jam in as replacement for the Damned.

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 14:00pm


Damn; forgot about the Beautiful South. They've got superb lyrics, a strong discography and enough influence. The comparisons to the Smiths' lyrics won't do them any favours, though.

Posted by l i a m on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 14:21pm


OK, I'm putting up the "Snubs Queue" as I see it:

1 Kraftwerk
2 Stooges
3 Joy Division
4 Brian Eno
5 King Crimson
6 Sonic Youth
7 The Cure
8 T. Rex
9 Deep Purple
10 Alice Cooper

11 Afrika Bambaataa
12 Gang of Four
13 The Buzzcocks
14 Depeche Mode
15 The Fall
16 Beastie Boys
17 Metallica
18 Roxy Music
19 Nick Drake

20 The Jam
21 Genesis
22 Hüsker Dü
23 Def Leppard
24 Tangerine Dream
25 The Cars
26 XTC
27 Black Flag
28 MC5
29 Can
30 New York Dolls

31 Devo
32 The Human League
33 Sioxsie and The Banshees
34 Neu!
35 Pere Ubu
36 Emerson, Lake & Palmer
37 Public Image Limited
38 Yes
39 Tom Waits
40 Talk Talk

41 Love
42 Captain Beefheart
43 Modern Lovers
44 Echo & the Bunnymen
45 Cocteau Twins
46 The Specials
47 The Monkees (hey hey, we're...)
48 Big Star
49 The B-52s
50 Madness

I'll admit, I DID use Capser's old list for help ;D

PLEASE, feel free to comment on people that I'm supposed to have missed (I finished at 50 ON PURPOSE), unless it's the Moody Blues or Rush or Heart or whoever, because there ARE groups who I feel DON'T deserve inclusion.

I've probably forgotten about a BAZILLION artists.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 02.9.08 @ 15:12pm


Damn, I guess New Order is just an elusive group (see Casper's list). I'll put 'em between 17 and 22.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 02.9.08 @ 15:21pm


Shall I assume that my list is totally perfect, or has nobody-bothered seen it?

In reality, I might crank GoF up a few notches, since "that lame-rip-off band" (Begins with 'R' ends in 'ed Hot Chili Peppers') is almost certainly going to be inducted in a few years time when it becomes eligible.

Seriously, feel free to critique it, even if it be only a few minor tweaks. That's why I posted it!!

Posted by Liam on Friday, 02.15.08 @ 13:47pm


For some odd reason, I confused Judas Priest as Def Leppard on my list. What a silly mistake.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 03.30.08 @ 09:45am


They are not there. That's an insult to me..they are the greatest neopunk band, I think if the hall of fame wants fame they should put in, inmiadetlly

Posted by lissette on Tuesday, 04.8.08 @ 14:35pm


At the moment, Joy Division are at the front of my post-punk queue, mainly because Robert Smith was so heavily influenced by them and they would not have gone down their "Pornography" road without the influence from Unknown Pleasures and Closer, so The Cure are second.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.13.08 @ 11:46am


Definitely should be. Not only did they spark off their own genre, (which has since sparked off its own emo subgenre,) they were one of the founding members of alternative rock, which means that all indie/alternative rock bands have The Cure to thank for their careers. And they've influenced a huge amount of mainstream pop/rock/hard rock/ teen angst/post-punk revival/80's revival music. Apparently Robert Smith was one of the first men in rock to make self-pity and weakness a central theme in songwriting, which basically means most, if not all, modern music has been influenced by him to some extent. Thirty years since they formed, teenagers still listen to their music and go to their concerts, and loads of Cure hits have become fixtures of rock radio stations. This is definitely a band without which modern music would be completely different.

Posted by oh on Sunday, 05.4.08 @ 12:14pm


"Not only did they spark off their own genre," - oh

I assume you're speaking of Goth (as most people do), and no, they did not "spark it off" in the slightest. They were only doing goth by '80/'81, meaning Siouxsie & the Banshees ('78) and Bauhaus ('80) beat them to it.

"(which has since sparked off its own emo subgenre,)"

I never realised The Cure had much of a hand in hard-core punk. Oh wait, they didn't.

"they were one of the founding members of alternative rock,"

Not even close.

"which means that all indie/alternative rock bands have The Cure to thank for their careers."

So by that logic, Blur owe Husker Du?

"Apparently Robert Smith was one of the first men in rock to make self-pity and weakness a central theme in songwriting,"

According to whom? Have they been sacked yet? Because Robert Smith is NOWHERE NEAR the first of his kind.

"which basically means most, if not all, modern music has been influenced by him to some extent."

Even the Modern Music that came before him? Keep trying.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 05.4.08 @ 12:39pm


Forget about genres; The Cure were an excellent RnR band that had a mood in their music that reached past expectations and touched many people. They wrote good songs, recorded them well and performed them even better. I never understood what was so Goth about their music. He wrote great songs from the heart. Now bands may have done similiar stuff before the Cure, but they didn't do it as well which is why their reach went past the little sub-genres that have pigeon-holed so many other bands. I do hope the Cure are inducted one day.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 05.4.08 @ 20:43pm


I believe that The Cure will see their day in the Hall of Fame. Their relevance and influence is undeniable.

Besides... some of the old farts that run the RNRHoF should be dying off soon. The younger people taking their place will see the crime (of The Cure being neglected) and make it right. (Let's hope they do that with Rush, too. *crosses fingers*)

Posted by aquadonia on Wednesday, 05.7.08 @ 03:16am


Friggin' hell.
They not in?
This is just a disgrace. They should've gone in first-ballot, but well... Let's fix this as soon as possible. You just can't ignore their importance.

Posted by FNT on Saturday, 05.10.08 @ 21:01pm


ok..i thought they'd be in by now. Why aren't they in?

Posted by J on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 07:46am


Joy Division should get in before the Cure. Yeah, The Cure should definitely get in, but Joy Division first. In fact, Induct them both on the same ballot! that'd would be one heck of a year. Put Sonic Youth on there two. 80's Alternative giants are being snubbed, except for R.E.M. I'm Sick of it.

Posted by Calzone on Saturday, 11.29.08 @ 09:52am


The Cure does deserve it but I take issue with some of the comments about them being "The Most Influential" alternative rock band (I'm guessing these are from superfans)...

I'd note that most of The Cure's developments follow New Order's curve. Robert Smith was a fan of Joy Division and it could be argued that prompted his shift toward darker sounds. Pornography was almost certainly influenced by the rhythmic style of New Order's first album Movement. The Walk sounds like a parody of Blue Monday. Listen to New Order b-side Lonesome Tonight and you can hear what Robert Smith would start doing in the late 80s. Inbetween Days and Just Like Heaven are clearly based on New Order's rock sound. The famous Peter Hook bass style is all over their music.

I'm not prosecuting or persecuting Robert Smith. He was smart enough to see greatness, take it, and run with it into the field of thrilling pop euphoria, but lets acknowledge that there are other alternative bands that have truly shaped music more than The Cure has. Joy Division/New Order and Sonic Youth are foremost among them.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 01.17.09 @ 04:14am


They should be in. Influenced a lot of artists.

Posted by Rudy on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 19:31pm


Wow... I really thought they were already in. They should be. Like the genre or not, they're practically responsible for the en masse creation and popularization of New Wave.

Posted by Jess on Sunday, 04.19.09 @ 00:19am


Another overlooked 80s band totally deserving of Hall of Fame status.

Posted by Breaker on Friday, 09.11.09 @ 08:51am


The Cure should be inducted and i believe they will be. The biggest snub i see is that of Hall & Oates. Their accomplishments have been many and there are countless artists in Pop, Alternative, Hip Hop, R & B and even Country Music who have claimed influence including The Killers, MGMT, Kanye West, Gym Class Heroes, Jimmy Wayne, Mary J. Blige, Rob Thomas and many others. Gym Class Heroes released a mash-up album and two other bands are currently working on tribute albums. Their fans also include Smokey Robinson (who said he would induct them) and Mick Jagger. With their first Boxset out and sells over 80 million they were recently nominated for a Grammy pitted against The Black-Eyed Peas. Arguably the biggest artist of the 80's next to Michael Jackson and 2012 will mark 40 years in the business for the considered legendary duo that once won AMAs three consecutive years for best group or duo.

Posted by Dan on Friday, 02.19.10 @ 09:55am


Sure. I believe they have some influence so I can certainly support their induction.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 04.15.10 @ 19:30pm


"Shawn made a great point...measuring influence is quite difficult. Not in all cases, but in many. Were the Doobie Brothers influential. I am sure you could find a bunch of bar bands, as Shawn puts it, or some bigger artists that would say the Doobies influenced them...So, by that standard they should be in..." - Dezmond

Good point, and it makes me less likely to destroy the baby boomers when they try to ram a bunch of has-been classic rock bands down our throats. For example, today I was thinking a lot about Slade. Though they made virtually no impact in the US, they were the most succesful UK singles band of the 70's, and also had four #1 albums. Were they innovative? Not really, though a tight bar band doing the glam thing could be innovative. As far as glam is concerned, they were behind T. Rex and Bowie in terms of who was first. However, I can tell you they have some influence. Though I haven't confirmed it yet, I've heard a lot about them influencing KISS (who do belong for their influence) and some people have drawn a musical connection between Slade and KISS. Noel Gallagher listened to them growing up, and he's conjured the same pub-rock type anthems with Oasis (and they covered "Cum On Feel the Noize" as a B-side.) The Runaways covered "Mama Weer All Crazee Now", and I know Joan Jett had some glam influences. You might be able to find some bar bands influenced by them, and looking online today I found some Slade tribute bands. As far as societal impact, their hits provided a good night out and optimism for the country during an economic downturn (no I wasn't born yet), and "Merry Xmas Everybody" apparently re-enters the charts every Christmas and will be played every Christmas time in Britain for years to come. Now I'm not saying Slade should get in... I'm just saying that due to all of this they can at least be considered by the Hall (I'll do more research on influence later.)

I guess we have to try and do the research. I'd love to hear people's feedback on how to knuckle down and decide whether what looks like a borderline case (Foreigner, Motley Crue, Boston) can be considered (though I've come up with my answers for those.)

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 06.2.10 @ 20:43pm


Robert himself once said to Blender that whether or not they get inducted "isn't keeping me up at night". So he probably wouldn't show up even if they were inducted. It would be cool to see a national TV performance by them, but how many people would watch it? Many people would've in the 80's and early 90's, but they only have a cult following now.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 07.9.10 @ 21:32pm


I'm surprised The Cure isn't already in. They should be.

Posted by Mike on Saturday, 09.25.10 @ 05:54am


I think Depeche Mode deserve it a bit more but yes the Cure were an amazing band in the 80s and early 90s and should be inducted, i just feel that they're last two releases in general were quite poor and thats hurt them a bit imo.

Posted by Paul on Thursday, 11.11.10 @ 18:40pm


"I guess we have to try and do the research. I'd love to hear people's feedback on how to knuckle down and decide whether what looks like a borderline case (Foreigner, Motley Crue, Boston) can be considered (though I've come up with my answers for those.)"

I'll take you up on this my friend. One of the hardest things with influence is deciding "who did it first", especially if 2 acts came out with whatever significant/influential material at the same time. For example, Waiting For A Girl Like You by Foreigner was credited (per Wikipedia) for being the power ballad that bridged the gap between arena rock and adult contemporary audiences, and a quick look at the "where are they now?" files reveal many of those old time bands are still trying to appeal to these audiences now that their time in the mainstream has passed. However, Open Arms by Journey came out at the nearly the same time and is one of the most famous arena rock power ballads of all time, with its sound being heard in more than a few songs afterwards, so do we give credit to whichever band mananged to bet another band to the punch by a couple months? Or can we give "joint credit" if both bands come out at the same time with it?

Another issue is the part about cover bands or, like it has been said, bar bands. Unless you are the J. Geils Band or Huey Lewis & the News, most of these bands never hit the big time. So do we give credit to bands like The Doobie Brothers for influencing a bunch of essentially "failed" bands?

Another issue is how to "hear" the sound of bands in others. A good example of this is Guns N' Roses. Apparently they were one of the last great "classic rock" bands and deserve a first ballot induction, but if we go by citiations of influence, are very weak. However if you consider the raw and ugly (though extremely polished for commercial sake) sound of some of the post grunge bands, can we draw a line from GNR to the mainstream rock and roll of today? Just to prove they really were influential in spite of practically no hard evidence? Trying to build a case off of the "sound" being imitated is shaky at best, as much of it is off speculation, and speculating isn't really a good way to get inducted.

As far as the Cure are considered, they are easily one of the most embarrassing snubs in the hall and a great case for why there needs to be term limits so we can get the old timers who still want to play ostrich and shove their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the 80s.

Posted by Jim on Saturday, 01.1.11 @ 00:05am


Well apparently these artists were influenced by Guns N Roses

Marilyn Manson, Bullet for My Valentine, Korn, Limp Bizkit, X-Japan, Kid Rock, Buckcherry, Avenged Sevenfold, Tool, Crashdiet,

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 01.1.11 @ 06:14am


Valid points Jim. Unfortunately my response was rejected as spam (due to a connection problem) and I really can't be bothered writing it again. Maybe some other time. I'll just say that influence is difficult to figure out, but it's a necessary evil if we want to do things properly. I fully agree with the last paragraph, though I still hold out hope that The Cure and Depeche Mode (and maybe Eurythmics) will be inducted eventually.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 01.1.11 @ 06:15am


Tool? Are you sure? I don't know whether they've actually said it, but there is no similarity in sound at all. Equally dubious with Korn and Manson.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 01.6.11 @ 05:59am


Based on the Snubs queue posted way back (by Liam), I decided to do one of my own:

1 Kraftwerk (Objectively, they're going to stay in this position until they get inducted, end of discussion)
2 Sonic Youth (Beat out Joy Division for Longevity reasons)
3 King Crimson
4 New Order
5 Deep Purple
6 Joy Division
7 The Cure
8 T. Rex
9 Big Star
10 The Buzzcocks
11 Afrika Bambaataa
12 Judas Priest
13 Beastie Boys
14 Husker Du
15 Depeche Mode
16 Black Flag
17 Roxy Music
18 The Smiths
19 Can
20 The Jam
21 Iron Maiden
22 MC5
23 Motorhead
24 Stevie Ray Vaughan
25 New York Dolls
26 Siouxsie and The Banshees
27 The Moody Blues
28 The Fall
29 Gang of Four
30 Yes
31 Rush
32 Thin Lizzy
33 Emerson Lake & Palmer
34 Slayer
35 Talk Talk
36 Jesus & Mary Chain
37 Red Hot Chili Peppers
38 My Bloody Valentine
39 The Stone Roses
40 KISS
41 Ozzy
42 Dinosaur Jr.
43 The Dead Kennedys
44 Megadeth
45 The Specials
46 Bad Brains
47 The Replacements
48 Pantera
49 The Monkees
50 Happy Mondays

This is just a rough draft. If anyone (Jim, GFW etc.) wants to help me with this that's fine.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 01.6.11 @ 07:13am


"If anyone (Jim, GFW etc.) wants to help me with this that's fine."

Gladly.

I'd put Deep Purple at one, their omission easily the biggest embarrassment in the halls history.

I would take these acts off: (Not saying I'm against all of their inductions, but they don't belong in a top 50 to me)

Bad Brains
The Specials
Happy Mondays
Stone Roses
Jesus & Mary Chain
Talk Talk
The Fall
Gang Of Four
Ozzy Osbourne

And before some calls me one big alternative/indie/metal hater, I kept quite a few of those acts on there (Husker Du, Replacements etc.) so I'm giving it a fair shake, especially considering its a top 50, and there are more than 50 acts who I feel should be inducted. This means I'm putting an act like Slayer, who I despise musically, above say Journey, who I advocate for heavily, but dont have the qualifications of a top 50 snub. I'm trying to suck it up here.

I'd replace them with these: (In no particular rank)

Def Leppard
Motley Crue
Cheap Trick
LL Cool J
Heart
The Cars
Chicago
Duran Duran
The Doobie Brothers

These are musicians who more than made their impact and maintain a high level of notoriety (in a good way), without them, a somewhat balanced hall of fame just isnt there to me.

GFW: I'm guessing you used AMG. Thats fine, but I do think it has to be somewhat plausible. Nothing wrong with speculating influence via sound, (although its shakey) but I don't hear any sound of GNR in those bands. The only bands I could see being influenced by GNR today are A7X and Buckcherry. (A7X have actually admitted it as well) And thats only 2 bands.....

Posted by Jim on Thursday, 01.6.11 @ 15:15pm


Mostly I agree with that list, Jim. Replace the Mondays with Motley Crue. I'm going to be objective and remove The Stone Roses as they have no Stateside impact and for a short career (only one more album after the magnificent debut). LL Cool J can replace them. The Specials? Same reason. Put Heart there, or should Def Leppard go? The Gang I love dearly, but their reputation mostly rests on their first two albums. I like Def Leppard, so I don't have to hold my nose while putting them in that spot. The Fall? See The Stone Roses (except The Fall are still going), Mondays (most people think they hit they only had two milestone albums, so that hurts them) and Specials (again cramped by longevity and lack of Stateside impact) and put Chicago there. Ozzy deserves a second induction but since he's in already I can take him off. Motley opened for him, so I don't think he'd mind them taking his spot. The Doobie Brothers aren't that high a priority for me, so we'll agree to disagree there. I don't really like The Cars, but there are few bigger snubs in New Wave, so they can replace... Talk Talk. Now, I can save The Jesus & Mary Chain or Bad Brains, as Cheap Trick should replace one of them. I'll keep Bad Brains... actually, Duran Duran isn't that big a snub, so I'll keep both, at the risk of looking elitist, though considering I'm kicking GO4 off for Def Leppard I probably already have to prepare to dodge a torrent of abuse, since we know DL have been a touchy subject around here. Since The Melvins and Soundgarden technically aren't eligible yet (the Hall hasn't had the chance to look at them) they're not snubs yet, so we'll leave them for now. If GNR end up being the one 80's act on the ballot next year I do hope they get in, if only so the Hall doesn't skip over the rest of the 80's that they haven't acknowledged like it never happened. I guess I'll switch Deep Purple and King Crimson around; I'm itching to put them at #1, but it would be hard to argue that, as they haven't reached as many artists as Kraftwerk, and Sonic Youth and JD/NO are more relevant to what's going on today. No, scratch that; replace the Mondays with Motley and Ozzy with Cheap Trick. I don't feel Duran Duran is that pressing, so I'll agree to differ there as well.

Updated:

1 Kraftwerk
2 Sonic Youth
3 Deep Purple
4 New Order
5 King Crimson
6 Joy Division
7 The Cure
8 T. Rex
9 Big Star
10 The Buzzcocks
11 Afrika Bambaataa
12 Judas Priest
13 Beastie Boys
14 Husker Du
15 Depeche Mode
16 Black Flag
17 Roxy Music
18 The Smiths
19 Can
20 The Jam
21 Iron Maiden
22 MC5
23 Motorhead
24 Stevie Ray Vaughan
25 New York Dolls
26 Siouxsie and The Banshees
27 The Moody Blues
28 Chicago
29 Def Leppard
30 Yes
31 Rush
32 Thin Lizzy
33 Emerson Lake & Palmer
34 Slayer
35 The Cars
36 Jesus & Mary Chain
37 Red Hot Chili Peppers
38 My Bloody Valentine
39 LL Cool J
40 KISS
41 Cheap Trick
42 Dinosaur Jr.
43 The Dead Kennedys
44 Megadeth
45 Heart
46 Bad Brains
47 The Replacements
48 Pantera
49 The Monkees
50 Motley Crue

Posted by Sam on Friday, 01.7.11 @ 17:10pm


I did some coin flips to determine who in the Top 5 would get the #1 spot if Kraftwerk is inducted in the fall. The results: King Crimson would move to the top, Sonic Youth would be 3rd, Deep Purple 4th and Joy Division 5th. Nah, drop them to 6th and put New Order 5th (longevity). How the rest of the list will be affected by newly eligibles will be determined in due course. For example, if the Chili Peppers get in on the next try and Soundgarden doesn't, Soundgarden would take their spot. If the Beastie Boys or LL Cool J got in, Eric B. & Rakim would replace whichever one was inducted. If both were inducted, I might give the other spot to a proto-rapper. If Depeche Mode got in, then Duran Duran might take their spot as the next in line for New Wave, and so on and so forth.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 01.8.11 @ 05:48am


Atrocious that they did not get in on first ballot. They need to be let in on one condition-that they do NOT play Friday Im in Love at the inaugural.

Posted by Kevin on Thursday, 01.13.11 @ 05:49am


But I love that song. Can they play "Love Song" instead? Or something of Bloodflowers?

Posted by Sam on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 16:25pm


The Cure must make it very very soon, or the Hall will lose credibility. They are without question, THE definitive 80s post punk, goth band. Soooooo many of todays bands claim them as influences.

Also, the Smiths are not there!?!? Anyone seen critics best of lists from the 80s?

My hope is that the Hall doesn't turn into "a 30 year, post-grammy award ceremony" for what the kiddies liked. In 28 years, who will get in first, Justin Bieber or the Black Keys?

Posted by Matt on Monday, 01.31.11 @ 19:04pm


The Cure not being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame shows that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke.

Posted by Keith on Wednesday, 06.22.11 @ 23:36pm


First nomination this year, in its ninth year of eligibility.

Posted by JR on Tuesday, 09.27.11 @ 09:19am


The first act critics love that I'll assess is the Cure.

New wave is an amalgam of punk combined with Kraftwerk, an amalgam beginning with Television and Devo, and Goth began with Bauhaus. But continuing its grand tradition of putting the cart before the horse, the R&RHoF has decided to nominate the Cure first. That's not to say that the Cure shouldn't be nominated. The Cure combined new wave and Goth into a dreamy, often sad or disturbing, sound that would wind its way into the alternative and emo acts that followed. One could even argue that U2 drew some of its musical ideas for what would become The Joshua Tree from the Cure, but that would only be from listening to the two, and I have no statements to that effect. Even if none of these influences were the case, the mere fact that the Cure recorded the often covered song "Lovesong" would be enough to put them in consideration, if not on the ballot.

It doesn't hurt that one of the acts who covered the Cure's "Lovesong" is Adele, the cover of which appears on her current album 21. That album is the best-selling album of 2011, one of the few albums released the past five years to have sold over 2-1/2 million copies. I feel sure that was the impetus for nominating the Cure now. I'm also sure this gives the Cure another edge with the critics, who rightly rave about Adele's 21.

When assessing which of the twelve members of the Cure deserve induction, the first decision to be made is what albums are the important ones? To help answer that question, I turned to both All Music Guide and Rolling Stone. Both employ 5 star systems, so any album earning more than 3 stars is a good if not great album.

Here is a comparison of their ratings:

AMG RS Album Title
4-1/2 N/A Three Imaginary Boy
4-1/2 N/A Boys Don't Cry
3 4 Seventeen Seconds
3-1/2 3-1/2 Faith
3-1/2 3 Pornography
3 4 Japanese Whispers
3 4 The Walk (all songs from this EP are on Japanese Whispers)
2 N/A The Top
4-1/2 4 The Head On The Door
4 4 Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me
4-1/2 5 Disintegration
2-1/2 3-1/2 Wish
3-1/2 2 Paris
3 2 Show
3 2 Wild Mood Swings
5 4 Galore
3 3 Bloodflowers
3 4 Greatest Hits
4-1/2 3-1/2 Join The Dots: B-Sides Rarities
3 4 The Cure
2 N/A 4:13 Dream

So, using the criteria mentioned above, it would seem the only unimportant albums The Cure ever made were The Top, Show, Wild Mood Swings, Bloodflowers and 4:13 Dream. By saying Bloodflowers is unimportant, one cuts out one third of a trilogy (Pornography and Disintegration being the other two volumes), but that's where the critical assessments stand.

So, now let's take each of the twelve members and line them up with the albums. This time, I'm dropping out The Walk ep, since all its songs are on Japanese Whispers, all the compilations except Japanese Whispers. All the important albums are in bold type.

1979
Three Imaginary Boys
Robert Smith
Michael Dempsey
Lol Tolhurst

1980
Seventeen Seconds
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Simon Gallup
Matthieu Hartley

1981
Faith
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Simon Gallup

1982
Pornography
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Simon Gallup

1983
Japanese Whispers
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Phil Thornalley (bass on "Lovecats")
Andy Anderson (drums on "Lovecats")

1984
The Top
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Andy Anderson

1985
The Head On The Door
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Lol Tolhurst
Simon Gallup
Boris Williams

1987
Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Lol Tolhurst
Simon Gallup
Boris Williams

1989
Disintegration
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Lol Tolhurst
Boris Williams
Roger O'Donnell

1992
Wish
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Lol Tolhurst
Boris Williams
Perry Bamonte

1993
Paris
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Lol Tolhurst
Boris Williams
Perry Bamonte

1993
Show
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Lol Tolhurst
Boris Williams
Perry Bamonte

1996
Wild Mood Swings
Robert Smith
Simon Gallup
Roger O'Donnell
Perry Bamonte
Jason Cooper

2000
Bloodflowers
Robert Smith
Simon Gallup
Roger O'Donnell
Perry Bamonte
Jason Cooper

2004
The Cure
Robert Smith
Simon Gallup
Roger O'Donnell
Perry Bamonte
Jason Cooper

2008
4:13 Dream
Robert Smith
Porl Thompson
Simon Gallup
Jason Cooper

So, cross the important albums with the names of the various members, only two of the twelve men who were or are members of The Cure did not play on important albums - Phil Thornalley and Andy Anderson (it should be noted that they also appear on the live album Live In Concert, which also is not considered to be an important album). That means the following ten members are highly likely to be inducted:

Perry Bamonte
Jason Cooper
Michael Dempsey
Simon Gallup
Matthieu Hartley
Roger O'Donnell
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Porl Thompson
Boris Williams

Of those, the members most certain to be inducted would be those who appeared on what are considered their three finest albums: The Head On The Door, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me and Disintegration, considered to be
their best album overall. That would be:

Simon Gallup
Roger O'Donnell
Robert Smith
Lol Tolhurst
Porl Thompson
Boris Williams

Also working in favor of the Cure is that fans over the last few years have been asking for the Cure to be nominated. This would then be a very strong choice since it will draw younger fans to the R&RHoF. It also helps that the Cure is a British act, which may attract the votes of the British
inductees.

Let me close with all the acts I've identified so far who have cited the Cure as an influence, or who have otherwise covered or sampled songs by the Cure:
Jimmy Page & Robert Plant, Cherie Currie of the Runaways, Dinosaur Jr., The Jesus And Mary Chain, Jane's Addiction, Smashing Pumpkins, Massive Attack, Maynard James Keenan of Tool, Tori Amos, Garbage, Korn, Tears For Fears, blink-182, Rihanna, Adele, Death Cab For Cutie, Ben Folds, My Chemical Romance, Franz Ferdinand, Mission U.K., A Perfect Circle, Shakira, Superchunk, AFI, Lit, Good Charlotte, Alkaline Trio, Sisters Of Mercy, Tricky, the Killers, the Shins, Interpol, Spoon, Sigur Ros, 311, Kim Wilde, Goldfinger, OK Go, Metric, Airborne Toxic Event, Curve, the Dandy Warhols, Flesh For Lulu, Silver Jews, the Toadies, the Wedding Present, Reel Big Fish, Icehouse, the Fixx, Katie Melua, the Walkmen, La Roux, Low, Placebo, Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, Bravery, National, Jawbox, Freakwater, Cibo Matto, Anberlin, Plumb, Stavesacre, Soda Stereo and many others.

Posted by Charles Crossley Jr. on Thursday, 11.10.11 @ 04:08am


Never considered TV new wave. They were closer to Country Joe and the Fish in my mind. The earliest new wave bands (Talking Heads, Blondie, Devo, Costello, the Cars, etc.) were influenced more by pre-1967 synth sounds than anything else. Kraftwerk didn't have much to do with the formation. Later on some new wave bands became more electronic, and they were one of the influences, along with Moroder. The book "Are We Not New Wave" is a good history of the subject.

Otherwise I can't think of any major objection to their induction.


Posted by astrodog on Thursday, 11.10.11 @ 13:43pm


astro, is that book by Theo Cateforis?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 11.11.11 @ 07:13am


I think The Cure have at least 6 good albums and a lot of songs to be considered in the HOF. As a mexican I can express about the influence they have had in the Latin Rock, for example with Caifanes (for Mexico) and Soda Stereo (for Argentina). In my case I have found in Joy Division, New Order and The Cure sounds and a lot of influence on other bands that have been mentioned here, and even U2 for exmple haven't done.
And the most important thing, there are a Cure Sound, and it will last for ever.

Posted by Oscar G on Saturday, 03.10.12 @ 23:23pm


It is with much regret that I have to make this comment so long after The Cure first became eligible for induction into the R&R HoF.

Let me first state that, yes, I am a MAJOR Cure fan. But my bias does not enter into any discussion regarding their qualifications to the Hall. I have been a music lover since the summer of 83, when I was 9. I have studied popular music and all it's genres and subgenres. Books, mags, charts, etc - I am a geek. I know what I am speaking about.

The Cure have released a number of landmark albums including one bona fide major league masterpiece whose influence and impact can still be felt. That album is Disintegration (1989). The other landmark LP's the band has released are Faith (1981), Pornography (1982), and The Head on the Door (1985).

Sandwhiched before, in between, and after are a collection of some very inspired tunes from some very stylistically different albums.

Standing on a Beach - The Singles (1986) is simply one of the greatest compilation records ever unleashed on the public.

Make a list of their singles to get some perspective; that list can stand up well against even the most iconic bands singles output. Now that you have scratched the surface, dig a little deeper. One trademark of The Cure is their vast collection of epic album cuts. Too numerous to list really. Now plunge in even further to reach the B sides. I have never before heard such a commitment from an artist to ensure the B side every bit as enjoyable as the A side. The Exploding Boy (1985); B side to InBetween Days. 2 Late (1989); B side to Lovesong. Signal To Noise (2001); B side to Cut Here. Those are only a fraction of the examples of brilliant B sides.

In short order here are the major qualifications that the band possess:
Wide ranging influence on their contemporaries and future acts.
The songs - so many to choose from, and so varied.
Longevity - still packing in the crowds. They headlined European festivals all summer long (2012).
Integrity - Robert Smith could have sold out after the success of Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me(1987); he chose instead to create his masterpiece (at the time thought to be commercial and career suicide).
The music - Smith is a very gifted wordsmith and composer. The band often plays 2-3 hour sets.
A defining genre band - you cannot think of post punk/new wave/early goth ( I do loathe that term) without thinking of The Cure.
Real rock and roll (actually punk) attitude - Robert Smith and co. were determined to do things THEIR way and succeeded along the way.

I do not factor in popularity/sales into the discussion; that is irrelevant and that is what charts are for. Gold records DO NOT MAKE a great artist. Just for good measure though, The Cure has those as well.

So what is the problem Nominating Committee and Voting Committee? Did you NOT receive a BJ from Robert Smith? How unethical and unprofessional are you exactly?

So The Cure was nominated in 2011, but not 2012? This is a fact: The Cure will never again do ANYTHING to be included into your cronies club. They already have achieved beyond what should be required.

Why were they never featured on the cover of Rolling Stone while such immortal rock icons like Spin Doctors, Blind Melon, Clay Aiken, D12, Good Charlotte, Wilson Phillips, and Soul Asylum have graced the cover? Why Mr Wenner?

You are intellectually dishonest and shallow if you begin an article on the MUSIC of The Cure with numerous statements about MAKEUP and HAIR.

If you personally do not like The Cure then I understand. I am not a big fan of Ray Charles. But I know that he is a legend, he was groundbreaking and very influential. He earned his spot in the Hall. Do you see how that works? I did not lie. A Hall of Fame is not a gigantic tape deck for your favorite mix tape. Percy Sledge had a great hit in 1966. That was it. How does he belong?

You need to reconfigure the Hall somehow. A wing for the greatest one hit wonders. Levels for different caliber of performers. The Beatles, Elvis, James Brown, Bowie etc at the top. Figure out the rest based on their true place in the hierarchy of rock and roll.

Or is too late? Have you already contaminated the supposed Hall of Fame with your back door dealings, shady nominating practices, and suspect voting tallies? You are a group of dishonest people. And for the sake of goodness, please educate the people you put so much faith in to fill your mistake on the lake. Let them make an informed decision.

Posted by The Real Truth on Friday, 10.19.12 @ 02:08am


@The Real Truth-The R&RHF has a severe and well-documented aversion to the 1980s, which includes the whole post-punk/new wave era. That's the long and short of it

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 10.19.12 @ 16:54pm


@ astrodog - I do beleieve that they are willfully ignorant. I was over the moon when The Police were inducted. The Police and The Cure are my two favorite bands. For two very different reasons. But I am honest enough to admit when an artist that I do not care for in particular deserves induction.

A Hall of Fame is for greatness. Greatness achieved many times over, not just once. Mickey Mantle is a Hall of Famer. Steve Garvey is not. Mantle = great. Garvey = good.

So much cronyism and dishonesty go into the selection process that it truly taints the whole thing.I have to question the integrity of everyone involved. The older I get, the more hardcore and steadfast I become in all matters integrity.

And The Cure are not the only acts being snubbed. I know the arguments for Rush, Deep Purple, Yes, KISS, Chicago, Donna Summer, The Moody Blues, and Heart have merit. There are also strong cases to be made for Hall & Oates, Depeche Mode, The Smiths, Joy Division/New Order, and The Cars.

The powers that be need to get off their fat, lazy, entitled asses and slap on a set of good headphones and listen up to some deserving artists.

And let me state this: Bon Jovi should NEVER BE ALLOWED ON THE BALLOT AGAIN. I do not care how popular they are. Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, Kenny G, Michael Bolton, The Spice Girls, Alanis Morisette, and Nickelback have sold a boatload as well. But they aren't getting in. Bon Jovi is bland, generic music for 80's party girls. No more, no less.

One thing I did forget to mention about The Cure though: instant recognizability. Robert Smith's unique tenor, at once plaintive and then increasingly emotional. The Fender Bass VI that Robert plays is so distinct and otherworldly sounding.

And stop nominating/inducting all the Motown/Stax/60's soul acts. They weren't all great. If The Marvelettes are really known just for "Please Mr Postman," then you should pass. Soon enough, anyone that cut an album in the 60's will be inducted. Save spots for THE ELITE ONLY.

Posted by The Real Truth on Friday, 10.19.12 @ 23:33pm


The masters of alternative music and not yet in the hall of fame. Wow. No wonder the hall of fame is becoming less and less important to fans. True artists and musicians are continuously overlooked for those that fall so conveniently into the pop/money culture. Sad.

Posted by Trains on Tuesday, 07.30.13 @ 20:53pm


I seriously hope that the RRHOF will induct The Cure this upcoming year. Such a fantastic, innovative band that has been sadly overlooked in favor of lightweights like John Mellencamp, Randy Newman, and Laura Nyro.

Along with The Cars, The Cure were one of the first bands I remember seriously liking. Their blending of punk with dark, gothic overtones made them one of the most relentlessly exciting bands of the 1980s. Robert Smith's haunting, Bowie-esque vocals and ominous stage presence place him at the vanguard of frontmen for me. Their repertoire is filled with a diverse array of songs: quirky psychedelia (The Caterpillar), synthpop (Let's Go to Bed), straight forward rockers (Boys Don't Cry), hypnotic ballads (Lovesong), somber, funereal alternative pieces (Pictures of You), and eerie punk (Plastic Passion). Just a top-notch band all-around. Come on, RRHOF, induct Robert Smith and the boys ASAP. And while you're at it, consider allowing Tim Burton to deliver the induction speech. He's as big of a Cure fan as they come.

Posted by Zach on Thursday, 08.8.13 @ 17:57pm


See Zach, I can totally agree with you here on both The Cure and The Cars, two very favorites of mine.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 08.8.13 @ 22:10pm


Saw this band at Voodoo Music Fest. They closed out the weekend. Was the main band I wanted to see (along with Pearl Jam & Paramore).

Robert Smith was in all his mopey glory. Doesn't talk much at all, mostly just '1, 2, 3' to start the next song. Played just about all their hits. Have now heard 'Just Like Heaven' & 'Cose to Me' (my 2 favorite Cure songs) live! Must confess I headed out during encore & missed 'Boys don't Cry'. Had a 12 hour drive coming up & needed to get a decent night's sleep.

Venue had excellent video boards on both sides of Ritual Stage & Mr. Smith's wild hair is streaked with grey, so no wig there or a Hollywood quality one. His fingernails were unpainted & he wore only a wedding ring. Had his famous black guitar with 'Citizens not Subjects' on it.

I was very impressed with the drummer. He did a great job keeping the groove going (along with the keyboardist). Need to see them live fellow FRLers, they ain't gettin any younger!

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 11.19.13 @ 13:04pm


I've always wanted to see The Cure live but they just never come around St. Louis! Of course, I had my opportunity this summer if I would have taken the drive to Chi-town for Lollapalooza.

I've loved The Cure's music for several years and decades, and I can't wait until they finally get inducted.

p.s. Thanks Paul for the review

Posted by Jason Voigt on Tuesday, 11.19.13 @ 13:12pm


The Cure should make it in 2015. They are one of the best & influential groups not yet inducted. Remind me of REM & Red Hot Chili Peppers in that their music was hit & miss with me.

One of the posters brought up a good point that sometimes their music was overshadowed by Robert Smith & the image. My FAV Cure songs would be Friday I'm In Love & Just Like Heaven.

Just too many people love the Cure's music for them not to be inducted. The RRHOF inductees respect them & they will get a good push from their impressive fan base.

Don't forget marketing too. Putting KISS in will have to boost the cash registers & ticket sales at the Hall with Kiss shirts & exhibits with the massive KISS army. The same thing will happen when the large Cure fan base & Goths hit the Hall. KING

Posted by KING on Friday, 01.31.14 @ 01:56am


If not them then no one belongs

Posted by eric on Sunday, 06.1.14 @ 19:44pm


What is wrong with this people? Why The Cure is not in yet?

Posted by BulmaPunkRocker on Sunday, 07.6.14 @ 22:10pm


So Nine Inch Nails before The Cure? Amusing how voters seem to skip clearly qualified bands to nominate other bands that were admittedly influenced by the former. It's like putting in Prince before James Brown or Guns n Roses before Aerosmith.
Nine Inch Nails are very deserving, an elite act, but still why such disdain for The Cure?
I know there are still artists that should also go in such as Chicago, etc. But it seems that voters have a strange distaste for lineage :Bowie - Joy Division - The Cure - Nine Inch Nails.

Posted by The Real Truth on Thursday, 10.16.14 @ 22:57pm


The Cure and The Smiths totally belong. I mean, Linda Ronstadt is in for crying out loud.

Posted by Nolan on Saturday, 10.18.14 @ 13:34pm


The Cure deserve RRHOF induction. Made impactful music since the late 70's. The more I listen to The Cure back catalogue of songs, the more enjoyment every listen. I think The Cure gets nominated again in 2015 taking The Smiths spot from last year. They will definitely be inducted by 2020.Like to see Duran Duran and Def Leopard inducted too. KING

Posted by KING on Sunday, 05.10.15 @ 00:28am


Seventeen Seconds (1980), Faith (1981) and Pornography (1982) made for one of those top shelf three album runs.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 05.11.15 @ 00:45am


Listen to Disintegration in it's entirity again in 2015. It is no less perfect, or moving, than it was the day it was released ~25 years ago. And that is just one album!

They were a modern and completely seperate! branch of the family tree which is Rock and Roll.

How the End always is.

Posted by clone on Sunday, 06.7.15 @ 23:52pm


I'm hoping The Cure is nominated this 2015 cycle. One of those groups who were both influential and commercially successful. They have a strong catalogue of CD's and songs that should put them in RRHOF in the next 5 years. Clone brought up a good point about Disintegration. Excellent album. I gave my copy to my sister and lost my other copy during the move. SOL I guess. The Cure are an outstanding group and RRHOF worthy. Agree with Dezmond... The Cure should be inducted. KING

Posted by KING on Thursday, 08.6.15 @ 03:59am


Saw The Cure last night in Atlanta and they put on a fantastic show. 3 hour set. They really deserve another nomination!

Posted by Mike on Saturday, 06.25.16 @ 10:38am


I created a petition to try to get The Cure inducted next year. Please sign & share! Thanks!

https://goo.gl/z4iZQg

Posted by Bonnie Strohl on Sunday, 10.23.16 @ 21:31pm


If there really is a cap on the number of enshrined members (and by some other person's guesswork, the cap appears to be set at "8" per group), I'm guessing a future The Cure induction will include only the following members:

1. Robert Smith
2. Lol Tolhurst
3. Simon Gallup
4. Porl Thompson
5. Boris Williams
6. Roger O'Donnell
7. Perry Bamonte
8. Michael Dempsey

These are the people who played on their most essential albums (the early era from "Three Imaginary Boys" to "Pornography", and their peak period from "The Head On The Door" to "Wish").

Excluded are the non-original members who played on only 1 studio album (Matthieu Hartley and Andy Anderson), the one who was an official member only on a live album (Phil Thornalley), and their long-time drummer who became a member when they were past their prime (Jason Cooper).

Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, 03.14.17 @ 22:52pm


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.