The Monkees

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1991 (The 1992 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? Yes  what's this?


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 2007 (ranked #187) .


Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
I'm A Believer (1966)
Last Train To Clarksville (1966)
(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone (1966)
Daydream Believer (1967)
Pleasant Valley Sunday (1967)

The Monkees @ Wikipedia

The Monkees Videos

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

Comments

385 comments so far (post your own)

You know, they were a major influence on the Beatles.

Posted by me2 on Wednesday, 02.14.07 @ 10:20am


It sickens me in every way that the Monkees have not yet been seriously considered for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Who cares how the band formed? The Monkees made some of the greatest music of the 1960's. The Beatles only wrote 8 of the 14 tracks on their first album, and even they borrowed a song from Goffin and King. The Monkees were a band that should have never worked. You can't just stick four people together and say "go". There was something there, something undeniably great. Not to mention Micky Dolenz is possibly the most underrated rock vocalist of all time. It's kind of fitting though that even though throughout their entire career they fought for independence and creative control and got pretty much nothing but disrespect from the people who held financial strings on their careers, and yet now they're looked down upon as nothing but puppets. Mike Nesmith alone is worthy of the Hall of Fame as such an amazing songwriter, musician, performer, country rock/music video pioneer. Hopefully someday he'll get some respect in the Hall as a solo artist. If musicians voted for their own then the Monkees would have been inducted years ago, but as is we have "rock historians" deciding what's "proper" for induction.

"The Monkees are what the Beatles pretend to be." - Peter Shotton, longtime Beatles confidant and childhood friend of John Lennon

Posted by Scott Sandrock on Sunday, 02.18.07 @ 14:55pm


I must apologize up front for length, but this should be argued.I'll try to keep it short.
There were several bands at the time that didn't play on their own records.That's how records were made back then. I can't bring to mind the names,(I know this weakens the point) but,I once saw a list of groups that had whole albums recorded while they were actually on the road. They would simply make an appearance at the studio to lay down the vocals.
The monkees influence can't be denied by anybody with a true understanding of rock history. The obvious is being the first to solidly tie music and television together. MTV owes their existance to the Monkees and directly to Mike Nesmith.
Every boy band(for good or bad) that ever sold a record owes the Monkees!
Although they would never admit it, half of a generations first exposure to rock-n-roll was that TV show.
That all said, they will never make the hall simply because of artist snobbery and industry politics. The real problem is that the voters don't understand that "it's only rock-n-roll", they take themselves and their art too seriously.
This is something that I'm passionate about!
Bottom line... rock is just another type of entertainment that lets the average person escape for bit of time. This TV show,these songs, these PERFORMERS did that(and still do) with genuine talent and did indeed and in fact influence others to do the same. They meet the criteria!!! Who gives a rockf_ck how they met each other.

Posted by phil on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 20:14pm


I went back to the form letter(under alice cooper comments) and read that "innovation and influence" are heavily considered. The monkees had several technical firsts to their credit. Sorry, I'm out of time, you'll have to research the facts on those for yourself.

Posted by phil on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 20:54pm


You can argue all day and night about whether The Monkees were a "real band" or not. They may not have been formed in the conventional sense, but they recorded together under the same name. They may not have played on the first 2 albums, but many bands of the day didn't. They fought the powers-that-be to play and DID play on their third album, which many people consider to be their first album as it showed who they were musically. (the first 2 being soundtracks for the TV show). They DID tour, playing their instruments and putting on a live show that was above and beyond anything that other bands at the time were doing. The shows were not only longer; they also were multimedia events with costume changes and solo turns. They DID write songs, they DID produce their music, they DID experiment with different recording processes.

Influence? Some of the finest pop recordings EVER made. And that was done while filming a weekly TV series, fulfilling promotional obligations, rehearsing, and touring! Influence? Rock and roll and long hair brought into living rooms on a weekly basis in a comedy show when those things were synonymous with Communism or "hippie freaks." Influence? Countless budding musicians learning how to play "Steppin' Stone." Many went on to play in or front professional groups.

I agree with Phil when he says that snobbery will keep these guys out of the HOF. Get a grip, people. Music is about enjoyment and the meaning it brings to the listener. The Monkees belong in the HOF.

P.S. I didn't even begin to start on how Michael Nesmith has contributed to music!!! He deserves to be in for solo contributions as well.

Posted by Edith on Friday, 04.6.07 @ 10:46am


Wannabe singers auditioned in front of producers who judged the perfomances and voted yay or nay on each singer. Only the best were given a record contract and appeared on TV. American Idol, right? WRONG....The Monkees! 'Nough said!

Posted by Debbie on Tuesday, 06.19.07 @ 13:46pm


Your point?

Posted by Dezmond on Tuesday, 06.19.07 @ 16:51pm


I am 49 now. When I was a kid I loved their music and still do. It has always been some of my favorite. Shouldn't that be enough. The rest is politics

Posted by mike on Saturday, 06.23.07 @ 12:09pm


"It has always been some of my favorite. Shouldn't that be enough. The rest is politics"-mike

Okay, that settles it. They're some of mike's favorite, and he says that's enough. Put 'em in.

(Not actually opposed to their induction, but come on.)

Posted by William on Saturday, 06.23.07 @ 21:33pm


William: "(Not actually opposed to their induction..)"

Really? I always assumed they were just a t.v. novelty; what's the case for their induction?

Posted by shawn mc on Sunday, 06.24.07 @ 10:46am


I have no strong opinions either way. Innovative they certainly were not, but I could see some people making the influence argument.

Posted by William on Sunday, 06.24.07 @ 18:06pm


The Monkees were a great band and produced great songs. Last Train to Clarksville, Papa Gene's Blues, What Am I Doing Hangin' Round...it's all timeless Rock and Roll that stands up today. Who cares how they got together, bands get together one way or another, as childhood friends, or, in the Monkees case, as talented professionals getting together to produce great music.

Posted by Steve on Saturday, 07.21.07 @ 13:20pm


"The Monkees were a great band and produced great songs. Who cares how they got together.."

You know Steve, The Monkees were harmless and fun but to propose that they were a "great band" is elevating them undeservedly, really. As their success mounted they did try to get their own songs recorded but in truth, their best known stuff was written by others.

They were innovative at the time strictly in terms of television concepts, but not musical ones. I think they have a place in the HOF, but only clearly defined as t.v. entertainment personalities.
There's no need to bash them, but if we overshoot their authenticity, we open that door that's got crass engineered choreography performance acts lke NSYNC, Pussycat Dolls, Spice Girls, Ashley Simpson, etc.
Many clueless lemmings legitimately sing the praises of Ms. Spears, not understanding that she is a PRODUCT - manufactured and marketed not unlike a like a box of breakfast cereal, with a hired song factory team fasioning songs like clothing for her.
Though The Monkees fancied themselves musicians arbitrarily through their careers, they began as basically a live action male version of Josie & the Pussycats.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 07.21.07 @ 15:34pm


shawn,shawn, shawn,
Are you really that ignorant of the business of rock-n-roll? All well known acts of the 70's were products. The monkees were just the most blatant about it. Innovation? The monkees had money from every aspect of music production and reproduction being thrown at them. (That is until Kirshner got upset because they wanted some control of what they were doing and he destroyed the whole project.)All fans know things like the monkees were the first to use the moog. Does that settle the innovation thing.

Posted by phil on Thursday, 08.9.07 @ 22:58pm


"All well known acts of the 70's were products"

Ofcourse. You just have to look at the Sex Pistols and Clash and you get the whole picture straight away

Posted by liam on Sunday, 09.16.07 @ 07:28am


ok,you got me. I will rephrase it."most of the well known top 40 acts of the 70,s"

Posted by phil on Sunday, 09.23.07 @ 16:47pm


If the business is entertainment-then ALL music available at stores (real or virtual) is thus the product. Last time I checked they weren't giving any of it away for free! (Not even The Bay City Rollers)

Posted by SG on Monday, 09.24.07 @ 22:59pm


You really don't understand what I was getting at with regard to pure "product", SG?

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 00:39am


I think it just comes down to hard sell vs. soft sell.

As well as %beef vs. % cheese?

Some artists don't want to or need to go into the action hero business because they don't need to or think it helps their image. Some artists don't want to be seen as trying too hard to sell their image....

I remember Pink saying something about pop stars showing skin to the effect that the less artistically an artist has going for them then the more they need to compensate in other areas of shall we say marketing......

Does any of that make sense?

It's late here on the east coast so my brain is even less functional than usual.

zzz

Posted by SG on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 00:58am


well since the editor of rolling stone is a jerk and does want them in and is high upmin the nominating comitte I doubt we will see it, but they should be but some editor is an @$$

Posted by David Tilley on Thursday, 09.27.07 @ 23:00pm


I was the produce aisle at the supermarket the other day and a woman who had to be in her eighties was cheerfully singing along to Daydream Believer which was playing on the sound system.

Like it or not, the music of the Monkees is woven into the fabric of American culture. To discriminate against their music simply because of their Pinnochio-ish roots is simply unfair.

And if "fake bands" don't count, how on earth did the Sex Pistols get in?

Posted by Daria G. on Monday, 10.1.07 @ 13:53pm


Put them in.

Posted by Frankie on Saturday, 11.24.07 @ 08:27am


The Monkees not being inducted into the Hall yet is a bunch of MonkeeSh_t!

I may only be in my mid 20s right now, but I respect the Monkees for fighting to play on their own records. Not only that, being allowed to do what they wished musically. That in itself should be a huge GREEN LIGHT. If you have to challenge authority [Don Kirshner in the Monkees' case] to be able to do what you love, you are showing not only the powers that be but everyone who has ever doubted you "hey, I can actually do this. If you don't approve, then something is wrong with you."

And Micky, Davy, Peter and Mike did just that.

They worked they tails off night in and night out shooting their series, recording the songs we now know today and all things associated. They outsold the Beatles and Elvis Presley combined in 1967 for crying out loud with hits like "Last Train to Clarksville," & "I'm a Believer."

Many musicians of that era didn't play on their own records a majority of the time. But I guess having to play an actual instrument must be an actual requirement to get in, huh?

Okay... tell that to Michael Nesmith who had singles of his own before the Monkees.
Tell that to Peter Tork who played music in Greenwich Village.
Tell that to Micky Dolenz who was a guitarist before he even picked up a pair of drumsticks.
Tell that to Davy Jones who had a recording contract and several albums under his own belt.

The people at the Hall look down on the Monkees as just being a made for television quartet who were just that. Um... yeah okay, whatever. Four consecutive number one albums, numerous top ten singles, a TWO TIME Emmy award winning television show, being the highest grossing tour in the 1980s and fighting for their musical freedom is just being a television quartet?

Then I myself am deeply jealous and appauld. Instead of putting big names into the Hall, why don't they just try inducting those who struggled to get where they are.

Posted by NameDisclosed on Sunday, 01.20.08 @ 00:29am


The Monkees were a real band. The were a televison show that became a band. Simple as that.
The show watched by millions and they sold millions of records. The toured all over the world. They as a band made an impact on rock music and the music business itself.

David Jones, Micky Dolenz and Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork = The Monkees

PUT THEM IN THE ROCK ROLL HALL OF FAME.

Posted by spud on Saturday, 02.2.08 @ 11:55am


The Monkees...the "Pre-Fab Four...an enigma wrapped inside a riddle. At first, the only real musicians were Tork & Nesmith, and they had a good team of songwriters (including Neil Diamond, Carole King, and Boyce & Hart),kind of The Beatles meets The Three Stooges. About the third album, Mickey had in fact learned to play drums and they made an album that was truly a departure from the pop stuff (Monkees Headquarters) They did something fairly new called "6 mode" (using session players as well as doing their own playing...which Brian Wilson did on "Pet Sounds" and the Beatles did with "Sgt. Pepper" . Unfortunately, the week before its release, the Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper" and the album largely went unnoticed...it is worth a listen, though. The session people they had was a pretty incredible list, including Neil Young. They always did their own vocals, and I think if nothing else, the concept deserves consideration.

Posted by Terry on Saturday, 02.9.08 @ 16:06pm


I think you could make an "influence" argument for The Monkees. I wouldn't be so keen to get them in myself, but I wouldn't disagree with their induction.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 02.9.08 @ 16:13pm


Saw them at the Denver Coliseum when I was maybe 12 years old. Jimi Hendrix was the opening act. Can you imagine how damaging that would be for a 12 year old?....lol!! I still don't understand that combination!!

Posted by Terry on Saturday, 02.9.08 @ 16:31pm


Liam...I thought you might find this clip interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwWKdQIiU90&NR=1

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 02.10.08 @ 11:08am


Wow...you'd NEVER catch a newsreader critisicing anyone like Jann Wenner here in the UK. Not ever!

Thanks, was interesting.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 02.10.08 @ 11:35am


I didn't see it, but I guess Bill O'Reilly really ripped Jann Wenner when he interviewed him about the HOF. Basically asked him who died and left him in charge and what made him and his little cronies the supreme judges of who was important and influential in rock history (he even questioned him about HIS induction). Thats why he said Wenner doesn't like him...wish that interview was on youtube...

There are some columnists here in the states that don't really care about who they put on the spot. Bill O'Reilly will ask very tough questions (and its usually right to their face).

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 02.10.08 @ 12:19pm


I absolutely love the Monkees, and their music does stand up.

Even the Beatles, Stones and Beach Boys used session musicians for a lot of their studio recordings.

Mickey is a great singer and drummer, I just love Davy's voice, and Mike is totally underrated as a song writer. What Am I Doin' Hangin' Round...I Should Be On That Train and gone...

The Rock Hall is a joke simply because critics, those worthless punks, are the voters. I'd love to see Jan Wenner or Dave Marsh try and write or sing a song. I'm certain that they simply can't.

As Michael Franks says (and he is right): "The Critics Are Never Kind, Their Specialty is Jive..."

I hate rock critics. The fans should vote on the Hall.

Posted by Lance Swanson on Monday, 02.18.08 @ 10:25am


"I hate rock critics. The fans should vote on the Hall."- Lance Swanson

By reading some of the comments on this site, fans voting on it would actually make it worse!!

"I would vote for "so & so" because he's a gorgeous hunk!!!"....spare me!!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.18.08 @ 18:56pm


I am not going to make an arguement either way. Personally I love them and think it would be great if they were inducted.

Wannabe singers auditioned in front of producers who judged the perfomances and voted yay or nay on each singer. Only the best were given a record contract and appeared on TV. American Idol, right? WRONG....The Monkees! 'Nough said!

Posted by Debbie on Tuesday, 06.19.07 @ 13:46pm



My question to those who call them a product and not much else is, what about the Motown groups? Basically, Motown singers auditioned in front of Gordy and associates and were voted in or out. They did not write or play their own music. All they did was lay down the vocal and harmony tracks.

What makes the Supremes worthy and not the Monkees? And to all Motown lovers, no bashing, I am a fan.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 09:17am


There is no way letting fans vote the HOF could work. Is there a place on this sight to discuss the general topic of the induction process? We should only be discussing the monkees here.

Posted by phil on Sunday, 03.9.08 @ 19:53pm


Hey, phil...you'll usually find that discussions about the Monkees and the sometimes "questionable" induction process go hand in hand.

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 03.9.08 @ 21:16pm


After reading up on them (besides the opinions I have from having lived thru their years), I would have to say Mike Nesmith should be inducted.

As for the band, they are close but not enough (IMO), songwise.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 03.17.08 @ 10:21am


The Monkees made some of the best music of the 60's. Last Train to Clarksville, I'm a Believer, Steppin Stone, Pleasant Valley Sunday, Daydream Believer are all classics. Papa Gene's Blues, which Mike Nesmith wrote, is not as well known, but it's a great song. Early on the Monkess didn't play instruments. Big deal. And later on they did play on their albums, and they did a good job. Ah, but they were too commercial. I got news for the stuck up critics: the best rock and roll has always been commercial: the Beatles, Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Fleetwood and yes even Led Zeppelin, were all commercial. To be commercial doesn't mean selling out. It simply means having a sound that people like

Posted by Rob on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 23:21pm


What is wrong with the powers that be, that they can or cannot decide if the Monkees should be inducted into the HOF. I looked over the lists of inductees through 2012, and some of the future inductees are truely LAUGHABLE. Where do they get these candidates. All of them are put together bands. How else are bands put together, and songs are still written for bands from other sources and studios inhance or modify the band members. So how is it so wrong for the Monkees and ok for the bands of the 80's 90's and so on down the road.

Posted by Denise on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 10:43am


In today's world, it is a shame that the Monkees are a group that have this 'stigma' that they didn't play their own instruments. If people bothered to look at the facts: Yes, for 3 months of their career they can be accused of not playing their instruments. The Monkees' show started in Sept 1966, then they spent nights rehearsing after TV tapings for 3 months in order to play live concerts. They did their first concert in Dec 1966. Then 3 months after that - they gained control of their recorded music and by the end of their 2nd TV season - they gained artistic freedom and control on their show. It is a shame that Jann Wenner wants to punish them for their first three months. In 1966, The Monkees were up front with media and told them they were not allowed to play on their records - although their first two albums had around 5 Mike Nesmith songs. In 1967, they outsold the Beatles and Rolling Stones combined. If you judge what the group did for rock music after Dec 1966 - they deserve the HOF. Another misconception is that you usually read that the show was canceled by NBC after their second season due to poor ratings. This was simply not the case. The Monkees still had good ratings and were tired of the Sitcom format. They wanted to do a music variety show but NBC wanted to renew them. They reached an agreement to do TV specials throughout the 1968-1969 season and if successful - they would get their new show. Unfortunately, there were studio strikes and disorganization to get the first special done - then NBC put it against the Academy Awards and the ratings stunk. Peter Tork quit the group and they weren't the same. I always felt that if they would have agreed to do the 3rd season and continued to gradually control and modify the show that their success would have been unparalleled into the 1970's - they had tremendous talent that was untapped. The success that the Monkees have had since the cable TV boon of the 1970's should have them in the Hall Of Fame their first year of eligibility. Every group comes together somehow - this was a unique situation. Maybe include the two guys who put them together - Bob Raphelson and Bert Schneider - if that is the issue. However, it is an embarrassment to the Hall of Fame that the Monkees are not in.

Posted by Mark on Monday, 03.24.08 @ 17:06pm


The Monkees have been my favorite band since 1966!
As a youngster, my father would say, "When you are 12, you won't care." Then after 12 he said, "when your 18 or 25, they may be just a guilty pleasure." Then in my 30's my father said "Damn, you are the most dedicated fan of The Monkees" Now Dad has passed on and well into my 40's now, my father's last comment made to me is 10 fold! It is Why is it "Rolling Stain" ragazine has such influence over the hall of fame? "Why Do we have to this all over again"? Listen to the band! They rock in every genre (a word I hate)Rappers get inducted? Yet great bands like The Monkees, KISS & Cheap Trick won't or "don't qualify? Then "The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" is a farse!

Posted by Kevin Stafford on Saturday, 06.7.08 @ 11:06am


"Why is it "Rolling Stain" ragazine has such influence over the hall of fame?"

Jann Wenner.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 06.7.08 @ 13:02pm


The fact that Wenner and the committee feel that only the uber-hip crowd should be in is ridiculous. I read the posts, and have a new bit to add on here, regarding the songwriting. Initially the Monkees didn't write their own material, and I know the voters hold that against them. The same year the Monkees first album appeared (1966) Cream debuted. One of the earliest hits was "I Feel Free", written by poet Peter Brown. It seems to me that in this environment where an act's songwriting skills were now held in high esteem, an act calling itself "Cream" would wish to be less reliant on outside material. I've heard folks slam Sheryl Crow for swiping a poet's verse for "All I Wanna Do". I'm not a fan but it appears there is a double standard regarding poets vs songwriters here.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 05:44am


In 1967 or 1968, can't remember which year, The Monkees sold more albums than the Beatles and The Stones combined

Posted by Stu on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 13:57pm


I had someone (without a clue and not old enough to remember...seems to be a lot of the going around) tell me that the Monkees were "bubble gum pop". Maybe a little, but not always...they could rock...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwGNR4SjgM8&feature=relatedjust listen

I would rather post songs and let people listen and draw their own conclusions, instead of engaging in a bunch of empty talk (a lot of that going around, too)

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 19:21pm


My goof...just copy and paste and leave the "just listen" off!! Never claimed to be a skilled typist...lol

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 19:24pm


Just for the record, I believe The Monkees were the first RnR band to use the Synth on a pop/rock record.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 20:09pm


I can even remember hearing the song you're talking about...just can't think of the title. I remember thinking "what is that weird sound??"

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 20:47pm


Just for the record, I believe The Monkees were the first RnR band to use the Synth on a pop/rock record.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 20:09pm



Just for the record yes the first with a hit.....LOL

Posted by mrxyz on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 22:18pm


MONKEES SHOULD BE INDUCTED!
I personally loved the Dave Clark 5 but felt they didn't deserve to be inducted before the monkees.
They did NOT make the impact the monkees did nor did they survive the years. The monkees have ALWAYS been out there in one fashion or another.
You definately here more of their music played than DC5. Its all just prejudice.

Posted by russell joyner on Tuesday, 09.23.08 @ 02:19am


People forget how big this group was. And if the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame needs to recognize rock and pop history, then they are not complete without this group. A true representative of those times.

Posted by Tim O on Tuesday, 09.23.08 @ 14:46pm


they played as good a music as any other 60's bands

Posted by Klingon61 on Sunday, 10.12.08 @ 04:44am


the monkees are the orgin of all things deserving.
tv show or not, their work was possibly some of the most beautiful poetry put to music. they light my heart on fire. it isn't easy.

Posted by nikki on Tuesday, 11.4.08 @ 13:38pm


I found my 8 and 11 year old daughters watching the Monkees the other day (Comcast has the show On Demand). When I expressed some suprise that they'd be interested in a 40 year old group that was even before my time, the older one said that although the show itself was "just okay", they love the music. If that isn't staying power worthy of some serious recognition, I don't know what is.

Posted by Jennifer J on Monday, 11.10.08 @ 11:17am


Like any musician, Peter brought his guitar to the first Monkees recording session. They told him "You won't be needing that". Mike had to fight hard for them to allow Peter to play on "Papa Gene's Blues".

Posted by Galley on Tuesday, 11.11.08 @ 10:28am


Putting everything else aside, the Monkees had a huge influence on popular music. They were the biggest thing going for a two or three year period and that included the Stones and the Beatles. But the R & R Hall of Fame is a friggin joke anyway.

Posted by Joe on Saturday, 11.15.08 @ 06:23am


NOT VOTEING IN THE MONKEES, MEANS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE ALL ABOUT , THEY WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEATLES----

Posted by MOD MIKE on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 05:50am


Actually, that's wrong. Their handlers DID want them to be an Amercian version of The Beatles.

Posted by Worm on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 10:54am


101% yes past do ..!

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 01.27.09 @ 10:43am


To all the people making negative posts against The Monkees: please stop and do some actual research before you embarrass yourself even further, in fact I am very familiar with all the discographys of every major 60s band (From The Beatles and The Yardbirds all the way down to The Turtles and The Association) and let me tell you: The Monkees records, are some of the best written and best produced Rock records of the era. And thank you to Scott Sandrock for pointing out what a great vocalist Micky Dolenz is, listen to "Goin' Down" and tell me that boy can't sing. And also, i can overemphasize what a great songwriter Michael Nesmith is (From "Listen to the Band" and "What Am I Doin' Hangin' Round" to "Different Drum", yeah that's right, Michael Nesmith of the Monkees wrote Different Drum for Linda Ronstadt & the Stone Ponies. Also, Michael Nesmith literally produced the prototype to MTV, if you don't know what I'm talkin' about, go look it up..

Posted by Jonny on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 02:02am


Honestly, this fake band stuff is such crap. Dennis Wilson probably drummed on as many albums as did Micky Dolenz. The Beach Boys used studio musicians all the time. Did that make them ineligible? Dolenz was one of the best pop vocalists ever, Nesmith a fantastic song writer and the Monkees music sounds as bright and fresh today as it did 40 odd years ago. They were hugely influential, and I'm sure the likes of Mick Jones of the Clash and Michael Stipe (who has said as much) were far more influenced by the Monkees than they were the Beatles. Give it up, Wenner. Maybe you and they will be dead when it happens, but they will get in eventually.

Posted by Pat on Friday, 02.13.09 @ 20:43pm


Induct the Monkees now. They are all still performing and I challenge you to find a group from the sixties that still have as many fans as the Monkees. Peter and Mike were musicians before the show and Micky and Davy ended up being great singers. I still go see the three that still perform every chance I get (especially Peter)!!!

Posted by Debbie on Thursday, 03.5.09 @ 15:30pm


Whether or not you agree with the Monkees as a serious consideration for induction, it's important to point out just how much MORE they deserve recognition from the Hall compared to The Dave Clark Five. The Monkees has more hits and sold more records - PERIOD. Because of the power of television, they influenced my generation of musicians just because they never seemed to "make it" on the show - they always portrayed the underdogs. The reason I personally believe they deserve induction is because in spite of the fact they were a fabricated band, created by Don Kirshner to cash in on the success of The Beatles/Hard Day's Night, they were so good at making hit records they eventually emerged as a musical force unto themselves and became as important as many of the artists on 60's radio who have ALREADY BEEN INDUCTED! Face it, The Monkees are legendary and deserve to be in the Hall.

Posted by Vince on Sunday, 03.15.09 @ 21:36pm


The Monkees deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Although, they were created as a manufactured TV band they eventually became real singers and musicians. They did tour and had many hit records. Everyone saw the Monkees on TV and they are truly musical legends. Just listen to songs that were written by Michael Nesmith such as "Papa Genes Blues" The Girl I knew somewhere,"and "Mary Mary" which was covered by Run DMC. The song "Daily Nightly" is a musical masterpiece with Mickey Dolenz on the Moog synthesizer. If Metallica and Run DMC are inducted into the HOF then The Monkees should be inducted hands down! I believe the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should let the public decide who should be allowed to be inducted. Induct the Monkees into the HOF ASAP!

Posted by David on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 18:48pm


The Monkees deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Although, they were created as a manufactured TV band they eventually became real singers and musicians. They did tour and had many hit records. Everyone saw the Monkees on TV and they are truly musical legends. Just listen to songs that were written by Michael Nesmith such as "Papa Genes Blues" The Girl I knew somewhere,"and "Mary Mary" which was covered by Run DMC. The song "Daily Nightly" is a musical masterpiece with Mickey Dolenz on the Moog synthesizer. If Metallica and Run DMC are inducted into the HOF, then The Monkees should be inducted hands down! I believe the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should let the public decide who should be allowed to be inducted. Induct the Monkees into the HOF ASAP! It is time to give the Monkees the recognition that they deserve worldwide!

Posted by David on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 18:54pm


David...I can't tell you the last time I thought about the song "Daily Nightly", but here's the clip they did of that song for the series, worth a listen;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfmQ6w7RW7k

Definitely an interesting song and quite a departure from their earlier stuff...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 19:55pm


Brian...just as a kick, I'd like you to sample this clip from the Monkees that was later in their series run and a far stretch from their earlier pop stuff. It's also the first time I can recall hearing a Moog synthesizer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6tgOEpb424

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 04.16.09 @ 19:19pm


Gitarzan, that is one trippy song, it is alot different than what most of the Monkees songs are like.

Posted by Brian on Thursday, 04.16.09 @ 20:45pm


What a cool clip! Gotta love those Monkees.
Here's another Nesmith classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5kt8cxfNRE

Posted by Jonny on Thursday, 04.16.09 @ 22:22pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6tgOEpb424


Wow that clip on youtube was kinda cool thanks!

Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 04.16.09 @ 22:28pm


Now I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I think Daily Nightly is the first record in the RnR genre to use the moog. If this statement is correct, then open the f'n doors to the Hall and let the Monkees in.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.17.09 @ 05:25am


Dameon...I know it's the first time I heard one, blew my mind!!! Brought back some memories, didn't it?

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 04.17.09 @ 07:16am


Gitar - to be honest; I own the series and everything else by the Monkees. Although the Beatles, Stones and everyone else had played on the Sullivan Show and like, it was the Monkees TV show that brought RnR and the carefree 60's into our living rooms every week. The Monkees were excepted by just about all the RnR scene. Both Nesmith and Dolenz were in the studio when the Beatles were recording "A Day In A Life."

Fact - were they created for a purpose of commerciality - yes. But so were half the Motown Bands

Fact - Did they need session artists to record the music - yes. So did the Byrds and Beach Boys, both of which are in the Hall.

Fact - Were they controlled by some suits - yes. So was every other band in the 60's up to 68.

The problem today as 40 plus years ago is that everyone still tries to compare them to the Beatles. That is unfair. However, IMO can they be compared to DC5 and several other Hall inductees? - absof'nlutely!

Put them in and be done with it. I tell you; the more and more I think of this Hall and how it is controlled by some idiots who think they are bigger than the music, the more I just want to piss on Wenner's foot.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.17.09 @ 07:53am


Spell check - (Accepted) in my last comment.

It is a good thing I went to college. Wow!!!

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.17.09 @ 09:20am


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgNxuNaYHsk&feature=related


If Zappa could understand and enjoy the Monkees, so should everyone else.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 04.19.09 @ 11:15am


Dameon...I can't remember ever missing an episode during its run. I remember looking forward to the music as much as the episode. I wasn't aware that the series was available, so I'll definitely be looking into that. I'll always remember there being something a little "different" about the "Monkees' Headquarters" album, which was about the same time "Sgt. Pepper's" came out, and my whole way of thinking about music changed...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 04.19.09 @ 11:35am


Actually the Moog Synth predated The Monkees' by one year.. The Doors Strange Days 1967

Posted by A.R. on Monday, 04.20.09 @ 22:27pm


The following is an exerpt about the use of the Moog on the album Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, & Jones Ltd. (released THE SAME YEAR as Strange Days);

"The album is particularly interesting for the pioneering use of the Moog synthesizer, which Micky Dolenz introduced to the group and played in the studio; he owned one of the first twenty ever sold.[1] Pisces is perhaps the first hit rock or pop album to feature the Moog. In any event, Pisces is one of the first few commercially issued recordings in any musical genre to feature the instrument. Micky Dolenz plays the synthesizer on "Daily Nightly" and electronic musician Paul Beaver plays the Moog on "Star Collector."

Posted by Gitarzan (the real one) on Monday, 04.20.09 @ 22:54pm


Well if you want to get into technically speaking about the Moog, it still predated The Monkees' from 1966 it was used in movie soundtracks, THEN at Monterey Pop Festive, it was introduced to the likes of The Doors, and The Byrds.. and TECH speaking they were released the same yr yes.. HOWEVER... The Doors Strange Days was released BEFORE Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, & Jones Ltd.

Strange Days was released on September 25, 1967
Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, & Jones Ltd. was released on November 14, 1967

Posted by A.R. on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 09:49am


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgNxuNaYHsk&feature=related


If Zappa could understand and enjoy the Monkees, so should everyone else.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 04.19.09 @ 11:15am

Well Dameon, This can very well be said about COVEN. Frank Zappa's 200 Motels. First there was a debate on Zappa and bands like the GTO's, WHICH by the way Rod Stewart did some of the backing vocals on that album. Check the credits. SO if Zappa could appreciate a band like The Monkees' the same can be said about COVEN.. Being that Zappa and Coven were good friends..

Also Gitarzan, the [1] in your insert tells me it comes from Wikipedia.. not a reliable source. [1] means that a citation needs to be checked or corrected..
The earliest I can remember hearing the Moog was on the TV show Dark Shadows.. in June of 1966 when it aired, and was a staple on the show even when the Doors and The Monkees' and who ever used it after.. But historically speaking music wise.. The Doors used it before The Monkees' Even if it was just a few months difference. It was USED commercially by The Monkees' on their television show. key word " commercially "
This is where wiki contradicts itself on the passage about The Monkees' album
"[1] Pisces is perhaps the first hit rock or pop album to feature the Moog. In any event, Pisces is one of the first few commercially issued recordings in any musical genre to feature the instrument. " First it says FIRST HIT ROCK OR POP ALBUM, then it says ONE OF THE FIRST.
Which is not true.

Posted by A.R. on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 14:58pm


Actually, I think the "Dark Shadows" music was done on a theremin (also used on "Good Vibrations"). there was a "free-form" album done in 1965 featuring Hal Blaine and Paul Beaver (a jazz musician who started using a Moog a few years before the Monkees or Doors) called "Psychedelic Percussion", which is featured on Rhapsody...pretty interesting stuff.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 17:49pm


Paul Beaver was also featured on the "Pisces" album, playing the Moog on "Star Collector", and programming it for Dolenz on "Daily Nightly", which in my opinion has a similar feel to it as "Strange Days". Synthesized film scores can be dated back at least to "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (1951) and "Forbidden Planet" (1955), but wasn't really thought of as "music" until the 60's.

So, commercially speaking, the Moog started taking on a life of it's own around 1967, but it's use in structured music dates back to at least 1965.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 18:11pm


Theremin yes for Dark Shadows, however Robert Cobert the show's composer owned a moog also, it was incorporated into many sequences into the show, I.E. The Dream Curse and more, as the show grew more darker, the more it was used, esp during the time travel and the parallel time sequences. The Theremin was used mostly at the end of a scene going into commercial. Infact when Colbert started using the moog on the show was the entrance of Laura Collins the Pheonix, Laura's theme was constructed from the moog, a few episodes later at the end of 66 was the arrival of Barnabas Collins.

Sadly the Monkees' were not the first, although a band I would like to see inducted. But will probably never happen. I agree with you on the similar feel of Daily Nightly and Strange Days.

BTW I thought that Psychedelic Percussion was released in 1967??

Posted by A.R on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 20:34pm


Psychedelic Percussion" I thought that was Hal Blaine LP..?

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 20:34pm


It is mrxyz,Paul Beaver who played moog on the Monkees' " Star Collector " played on the album Psychedelic Percussion with Hal Blane. Also, Paul Beaver was the Moog player for the Zodiac - Cosmic Sounds LP.. If you havent heard it.. It is a trip in itself.. No psychedelic drugs required.

Posted by A.R. on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 20:48pm


The first theremin Synthesizers.......
The movie's innovative electronic music score (credited as "electronic tonalities", partly to avoid having to pay movie industry music guild fees) was composed by Louis and Bebe Barron. MGM producer Dore Schary discovered the couple quite by chance at a beatnik nightclub in Greenwich Village while on a family Christmas visit to New York City. Schary hired them on the spot to compose the film music score. The theremin had been used as early as 1945, in Spellbound, but their score is widely credited with being the first completely electronic film score. The soundtrack preceded the Moog synthesizer of 1964 by almost a decade.

Using equations from the 1948 book, Cybernetics: Or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine by mathematician Norbert Wiener, Louis Barron constructed the electronic circuits which he used to generate the "bleeps, blurps, whirs, whines, throbs, hums and screeches".[5] Most of the tonalities were generated using a circuit called a ring modulator. After recording the base sounds, the Barrons further manipulated the material by adding effects, such as reverberation and delay, and reversing or changing the speed of certain sounds.[7]

As Louis and Bebe Barron did not belong to the Musicians' Union, their work was not considered for an Academy Award, in either the soundtrack or special effects category. Curiously, MGM avoided producing a soundtrack album when the film was first released. However, film composer-conductor David Rose released a 45-rpm single of his original main title theme, which he had recorded at MGM Studios in Culver City, California in March 1956. This theme had been discarded when Rose, who had originally been contracted to compose the filmís music score in 1955, was discharged between Christmas 1955 and New Yearís by Dore Schary.

The innovative soundtrack was finally released on a vinyl LP album by the Barrons for the film's 20th anniversary in 1976, on their own PLANET Records label (later changed to SMALL PLANET Records and distributed by GNP Crescendo Records) and, later, on a music CD in 1986 for its 30th Anniversary: with a six-page colour booklet containing images from Forbidden Planet plus liner notes from the composers, Louis and Bebe Barron, and Bill Malone.[7]

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 20:50pm


I also forgot to mention, when I spoke of the GTO's that Davy Jones contributed some songwriting happened to pull out that album to give it a quick go on the player. Funny album, and Funny that Daemon mention Zappa appreciating the Monkees' who produced the Groupie Album.. And Davy Jones contributing songs to it.

Posted by A.R. on Tuesday, 04.21.09 @ 21:40pm


A.R. ...how goes it? Just wanted to tell you that conversation on the Moog was great, and it probably made people search those songs out out of curiosity...which is cool. Do you recall Silver Apples? They didn't use a Moog (theirs was kind of a homemade creation), but they're from around that time and their music was pretty interesting...definitely worth a listen if you're curious.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 04.23.09 @ 20:17pm


Hey Gitarzan,
I can not remember my reaction when I first heard Ruby. It was so different considering the times. Silver Apples were way ahead of their time. My first recall of hearing them was live in NYC 69 I believe it was. I remember the stage as if it were yesterday. and I was barely a Teen!

Posted by A.R. on Thursday, 04.23.09 @ 21:07pm


put them in

Posted by BlaaahhhYourFace on Wednesday, 05.20.09 @ 20:33pm


Yeah. End this crazy vendetta and let them in, Rolling Stone. I know it's the principal of the thing, and you're probably afraid that this will open the floodgates and 40 years from now you'll have to let the Jonas Brothers in, but the music was great, they sold tons and tons of records, and they remain popular - and some might say influential - to this day. Yes, they were pre-fabricated for an awful TV show. Yes, they used professional song writers, and (most of the time) studio musicians. But somehow it all worked.

Posted by Jeez on Friday, 06.5.09 @ 18:04pm


regardless of how they were put together, it only matters if they were influential or not and I think they were, so put them in already.

Posted by Brian on Saturday, 06.13.09 @ 20:26pm


You see I like the Monkees show and thier songs, but they shouldn't be inducted because they didn't play thier instruments on most of thier albums naterial. At least Spinal Tap did that.

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 06.13.09 @ 20:37pm


Y'know, I'm pretty on the fence about them. Yeah, they were a complete fabrication at first. Then they learned to play instruments so they could tour. Then they demanded and got to play their own instruments. And that was when some of their best ("The Girl I Knew Somewhere") and most artistic ("The Porpoise Song") was made. And in the end, when they were forced to choose between being a rock band or a hit TV show, they chose to be a rock'n'roll band. That says it all right there, imo, and makes up for their prefab beginnings.

The Monkees belong.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 06.13.09 @ 23:06pm


The Beach Boys didn't play their instruments on many of their records either - like somebody already said, Dennis Wilson probably drummed on as many records as Micky. (although he was a better live drummer, of course.) Brian Wilson was well known for using studio musicians. Should that have disqualified them?

Dolenz was a fantastic pop vocalist, Nesmith was a great songwriter, the Monkees influence was felt far and wide, and they sold tons and tons of records. What the hell else does anyone want?

Posted by Katrina on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 12:25pm


Best Songs:

1. Daydream Believer
2. I'm a Believer
3. A Little Bit Me
4. The Last Train to Clarksville
5. Stepping Stone

Posted by Bingo on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 13:32pm


Good selections, Bingo. But I'd definitely add Boyce & Hart's Valleri, with the brilliant flamenco guitar solo by Louie Shelton.

Posted by ns_kid on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 20:09pm


I'd put "Daily Nightly" and "Sweet Young Thing" on that list, too...

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 20:12pm


No more love for "Pleasant Valley Sunday"?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 20:22pm


Louie Shelton...great session player (another song that comes to mind is "Lowdown" by Boz Scaggs), has played with scores of people on some pretty big hits. The solo you speak of just had a flamenco feel, but I believe he played it on like a D'Angelico hollowbody, or something like that. it was funny to watch Nesmith trying to mimic the solo on the TV series.

He's also a pretty decent producer, too...

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 20:22pm


I think it's Louie Shelton playing the guitar on Lionel Richie's hit "Hello"

He also worked with John Lennon, James Brown and Art Garfunkel among others

Posted by Keebord on Friday, 06.19.09 @ 21:48pm


(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone is a punk standard. Mickey Dolenz sang it with just enough of a sneer to influence a generation of little kids who grew up to be punk rockers.

Posted by CLL on Saturday, 06.20.09 @ 11:27am


they were t.v. stars, that`s it ! Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart wrote most of their hits, including HEY HEY WERE THE MONKEES (their theme song). Most people in the rock and roll hall of fame are composers and preformers. That`s why they call them artist and not actors ! Don`t get me wrong though. I was a teenager in the sixties and I watched their show every saturday morning.

Posted by jerry sr. on Monday, 06.22.09 @ 20:12pm


I think they evolved into just a little bit more than just "t.v. stars". You might want to check them out a little past the t.v. show...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 06.22.09 @ 20:19pm


Whoa, Jerry. Please don't be spreading disinformation or reinforcing unfair sterotypes!

Here are just some of the Monkees songs written by Mike Nesmith. If you ask me, these are among some of their best. And other members wrote and contributed to various songs as well.

All the King's Horses
Circle Sky
Daily Nightly
Good Clean Fun
The Kind of Girl I Could Love
Listen To The Band (my personal fave)
Mary, Mary
Nine Times Blue
Papa Gene's Blues
Sweet Young Thing (co-writer)
Tapioca Tundra
You Just May Be the One
You Told Me

Posted by CLL on Wednesday, 06.24.09 @ 11:52am


The Monkees should be in! The Beach Boys used session musicians more for the reason that they had multiple parts than they were incapable musicians. In fact BB played on every album they released. Brian would often use 3 or 4 guitarists on a song.

Posted by Scott on Monday, 08.24.09 @ 08:59am


The Monkees should be in! The Beach Boys used session musicians more for the reason that they had multiple parts than they were incapable musicians. In fact BB played on every album they released. Brian would often use 3 or 4 guitarists on a song.

Posted by Scott on Monday, 08.24.09 @ 08:59am

The Monkeys should be in..
The Beach Boys used studio musicians for many reasons .. One reasons was they were on the raod a lot.. Carl, Aland Brian played on the recordings also Even Dennis did.....
They all were involved in the Production and of course they sang on them... Many bands in the 50/60/70/80/90//2000 use other players ...This is nothing new or out of the ordinary ...it is call SHOW BIZ...

Posted by mrxyz on Monday, 08.24.09 @ 10:01am


I am thinking the Monkees!! very likely we will see

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 09.15.09 @ 23:24pm


No one has to guess about their contributions. Guessing just clouds the issues.
Here's a partial list from wiki. It doesn't even mention that Nesmith invented MTV with a pilot for a music video show that he sold the rights to Time Warner, which used it to produce MTV.
The MONKEES
* Had the top-charting American single of 1967 ("I'm a Believer"). (Billboard number-one for seven weeks) with "Daydream Believer" tied for third.
* First band to use a Moog Synthesizer in a top-10 album (used on "Star Collector", "Daily Nightly" and "Love Is Only Sleeping" from Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd., released in November 1967). (note: Dolenz had one of the only three synths in existence at the time, and it was a while till anyone else caught up.)
* Gave the Jimi Hendrix Experience their first US concert appearances.
* The Monkees reunion tour was the largest grossing tour of 1986.
* Last music artist to win the MTV Friday Night Video Fights by defeating Bon Jovi 51% to 49%.
* First music artist to win two Emmy Awards.
* First rock band to use a multimedia live concert show (film, stage choreography and music).
* First actual live concert footage to be featured in a motion picture (Head, 1968).
* Had seven albums on the Billboard top 200 chart at the same time (six were re-issues during 1986/87).
* are one of only ten artists achieving number-one hits in the United States and United Kingdom simultaneously.
* More of The Monkees spent 70 weeks on the Billboard charts becoming the 12th biggest selling album of all time (Billboard.com).
* Four number-one albums in a year span. The only act to have their first four albums go to number one on the Billboard charts.
* Held the number one spot on the Billboard album chart for 31 consecutive weeks.
* Held the record for the longest stay at number one for a debut record until 1982 when Men At Work's debut record Business As Usual broke that record.

Posted by froggy on Thursday, 10.1.09 @ 03:31am


Good post, Froggy.

It's just silly that they aren't already in the Hall.

Posted by JennyJones on Friday, 10.9.09 @ 10:19am


Now "hear" is a group that is all HOLLYWOOD HYPE but they were "fun" to watch on TV and came out with great hits.. Heck they had some of the best writters and players backing them.! From the Wrecking Crew to good old Drummer Dewey Martin...They even played on some of their tunes. !
Also they could "sing" and the acting was perfect for the SHOW...A GOOD role model for many future ROCKERS.. They should of been in years ago.. Just GOOD fun stuff..

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 10.30.09 @ 06:21am


Happy Birthday to BOTH Michael Nesmith and Davy Jones. Mike turns 67 today while Davy turns 62.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Wednesday, 12.30.09 @ 21:03pm


Actually Davy is 64.

They're getting old. It would be nice if they were inducted while they can still get up on the stage under their own power!

Posted by Sandi on Saturday, 01.2.10 @ 00:50am


They really should be in Some of the best production work and song writting in the 60's

Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 01.21.10 @ 10:32am


They should of been in years ago..

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 02.9.10 @ 22:35pm


It is more than odd that they are not In

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 04.16.10 @ 11:23am


I will be pushing very hard for The Monkees to get into our Rock Hall revisited when their times comes.

Posted by Jonny on Friday, 04.16.10 @ 13:04pm


The reality is "The Monkees" as we know them were actually four actors. Yes, I know Tork played keyboards and Nesmith was a talented song writer. But individually, neither belongs in the Hall.

Now, if we are talking about The Monkees as a corporate musical entity with hired songwriters and musicians, yes, they made some really great - some would say, influential - long lasting pop tunes. But is this effective, talanted corporate entity more deserving than overlooked organic 60's bands like the Moody Blues or the Small Faces?

Personally, I don't think so. But I'm not sure Wenner and the powers that be are all that objective either.

Posted by Etan on Wednesday, 06.9.10 @ 23:58pm


The reality is "The Monkees" as we know them were actually four actors. Yes, I know Tork played keyboards and Nesmith was a talented song writer. But individually, neither belongs in the Hall.

And Elvis was just a singer..??? LOL It is all an ACt get over it. They can sing ,dance and act They had it ALL !Some good stuff!!! Are you feeling ok..???This is SHOW BIZ... kid

Posted by mrxyzomg on Thursday, 06.10.10 @ 00:02am


I've made my feelings apparent by comments on this site (DP & Hall Revisited). Since The Monkees are part of my wish-list, I thought I'd weigh in here. And I am aware that most of what I have to say has been said, & probably better, elsewhere.

Nesmith: singer, instrumentalist, songwriter - pioneer of country rock & inventor of MTV.
Dolenz: singer, comedian, songwriter, instrumentalist & subsequent film director. "Fronted" a band from behind a drum-kit that he learned to play in an unconventional way while singing lead vocal AND could do it in concert without lip-synching. Rated as one of the best pop vocalists EVER (listen to Daily Nightly or Goin' Down, not just the pop stuff).
Jones: singer, broadway star, instrumentalist, equestrian & every girl's pin-up with a charming, cheeky style.
Tork: singer, songwriter, instrumentalist - the deep, intelligent soul who volunteered to play the dummy.

Yes, the huge early hits were composed & produced without their physical presence (other than for vocals), but that's how all records were made in those days, even by artists who weren't constrained by doing 70-hour-weeks on a TV show. Elvis & Sinatra spring to mind. And I won't even mention how many girl groups never sang on their own records, but were fronted by "anonymous" session singer Darlene Love (oops, I mentioned her). The rare exception was The Beatles, who were a continent away but still influenced & augmented by their producer George Martin. Despite all that, even on that first bazillion selling Monkees album, Nesmith had 2 songs.

Very few artists at that time did all their own material. Even The Beatles were covering songs until Rubber Soul (their first 5 UK albums contained 69 songs, 21 of which were covers). And you'll note, the latest "cool" trend is to record an album of covers. Where's the universal outrage now?!

As producers of their own music, The Monkees ventured into areas then uncharted in pop while still doing a weekly TV show. Listen to "Pisces, Aquarius..." for the synths & jams, the country rock & the song about groupies.

Yes, they continued to use other song-writers & some session players for certain parts on their records (who doesn't, even now?). But they were a group, a band, a valid musical entity & a creative force, irrespective of the feelings of certain self-proclaimed experts.

Their influence has been enormous. Their innovations in production (including Jack Nicholson's contribution) and instrumentation were ahead of their time in pop & rock. They sold in the millions, even after they parted with Don Kirshner.

They introduced Hendrix to America. They introduced Tim Buckley, Frank Zappa, Brian Auger & Julie Driscoll to the world.

They fit the criteria. So now we just have to wait for some people to have untimely accidents before The Monkees are nominated/inducted.

I'm done now.

Posted by Ian Chambers Oz on Friday, 06.11.10 @ 03:36am


mrxyzomg,

I see you've ignored the question I asked in the second part of my post:

"Now, if we are talking about The Monkees as a corporate musical entity with hired songwriters and musicians, yes, they made some really great - some would say, influential - long lasting pop tunes. But is this effective, talented corporate entity more deserving than overlooked organic 60's bands like the Moody Blues or the Small Faces?"

While I like the Monkees' music and know it never has waned in popularity, I do think the wildly successful concept of the "Monkees" is almost single-handedly responsible for Corporate crap like the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus that is created and marketed for mass consumption and then shoved down kids throats.

The creators get points for genius, the songwriters and musicians for their talent, and the actors for their charm and staying power. But Rock and Roll it ain't.

Posted by Etan on Sunday, 06.27.10 @ 10:22am


I think the Monkees were influential in a lot of ways, but I don't think they're responsible for the "Disney music crap" that graces us with it's presence nowadays. Anyone who thinks that obviously knows nothing about the Monkees...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 06.27.10 @ 10:33am


Sorry, but you're wrong, Gitarzan. I know quite a bit about the Monkees. And I don't disagree that the songwriters and musicians who wrote and performed for the actors had an impact on some of the next generation's musicians. Steppin' Stone in particular comes to mind. A proto punk anthem. And I'm a big Mike Nesmith fan. Very talented guy in his own right.

But it is simply disingenuous to flatly refuse to acknowledge the very direct influence this successful corporate enterprise and it's formula had on the "Disney crap" music of today. And corporate rock, no matter how good, should have no place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Of course, neither should Madonna, but I don't get a vote.

Posted by Etan on Tuesday, 06.29.10 @ 19:28pm


Were you alive then...???? If so, you'd realize that their music turned into something a little more sophisticated as time went on, they got more involved more with the production, their experimentation led to some firsts (see: Moog synthesizer), add that to the fact that they had a big influence on music video. I was a big Monkees fan (at a time that I was also a big Beatles fan) when the series was first aired, and watched this metamorphis as it was happening. It was actually pretty dramatic, and hardly anything remotely associated with what Disney is spewing now.

I think their main influence probably leans more toward MTV. I don't think Jonas Bros. or Miley ever put out anything that sounded like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ6mulYu4UM&feature=related

Side note...the guitar you hear on that song is James Burton, who probably wouldn't be caught dead in a Disney production.

or this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfmQ6w7RW7k

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 06.29.10 @ 20:39pm


"They got more involved more with the production..."???? Sorry for the redundancy...!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 06.30.10 @ 06:31am


Got to love the Monkeys! They could sing and act One of the best Hollywood productions in their day.The band member ere in deep on the whole show.
Great songs, great writers, great music. Heck From Hal Blaine to good old Dewwy Martin drummer of the Buffalo Springfield Carol Kay to God knows who ,where in on the recording gigs. The film crew was the best and the TV writers were hip.. Love the Monkeys

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 06.30.10 @ 07:33am


Yes, Gitarazn. I was alive then. And a young fan.

And I know all about the band's attempts at evolution, as well the Moog usage on Daily Nightly and Star Collector. (and it's Paul Beaver playing on Star Collector, btw, not a Monkee.) But you'll get a general "big friggin' deal" from me on that.

Tons of experimentation with sounds and techniques was going on circa 1967. But these two tunes are not particularly great songs and the technique usage alone - whether it be from the Monkees, or more likely, their "handlers" - doesn't elevate the band into the Rock stratosphere.

Face it; the Monkees were a well-oiled corporate hit making machine, so well-oiled (and well funded) that people are still very familiar with those melodic, well-constructed tunes to this very day. (Thanks to Shrek, my kids love I'm A Believer, but as performed by Smash Mouth!)

They cannot be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame if the Hall is to maintain ANY sense of legitimacy.

Sorry. But it's the truth.

Posted by Etan on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 00:10am


They cannot be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame if the Hall is to maintain ANY sense of legitimacy.

Sorry. But it's the truth.

Posted by Etan on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 00:10am

No that is not the truth, the truth is that is your subjective opinion. I'm sure there's just as many people who will argue the RRHOF lost ANY sense of credibility inducting rap artists or Madonna or Miles Davis as a main performer, or even Percy Sledge with the whole Atlantic corruption thing. Fact is, everybody has their own opinion and that's fine but passing a personal opinion off as fact is definitely not fine.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 03:06am


I can not think of a successful band that was not a well oiled machine .To be BIG it takes MONEY an HYPE
The Monkeys band members were good at what they did..From singing, acting and etc Of course they were involved ...How could they not be..? LOL


Posted by mrxyz on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 06:13am


Well, regardless of how intentional it was, they did leave a major mark on popular (and rock & roll) music. The innovations, regardless of who put them into play were still attributed to the Monkees and all of those songs may or may not have been hits without them putting the "voice" to them. The really do deserve to be inducted...if for no other reason than what the concept spawned.

I know they were an influence to me to pick up a guitar...as a matter of fact, they kind of sealed the deal...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 06:39am


"I can not think of a successful band that was not a well oiled machine."

Well, there are a few sloppy ones here and there that I can can think of.

But the word you left out from the prior's post is an important one - well oiled CORPORATE machine. Which is probably why you left it out.

I personally would have no problem with the Monkees being inducted, but I think what the poster is saying is exactly Jann Wenner's position on the matter. So as long as Wenner is calling the shots, I see no possibility of the Monkees being inducted.

Posted by Nikki on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 11:15am


Well, there are a few sloppy ones here and there that I can can think of.

But the word you left out from the prior's post is an important one - well oiled CORPORATE machine. Which is probably why you left it out.
----------------------------------------------
I can't think of a succesful band that didn't become corporate one way or another..This is called the MUSIC BUSINESS or SHOW BUSINESS..
Get over it to be BIG takes and make$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by mrxyzomg on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 12:09pm


"Becoming corporate" and being created, promoted, and essentially directed by corporate interests are very different things. I love the Monkees for their attempts to break away and become a real band. It gives them a Pinocchio-ish sort of charm. But in truth their best and most long lasting music was created and mostly performed by others. There's really no way around that and it seems Mr. Wenner and the powers-that-be will forever use it against them.

Posted by Nikki on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 13:12pm


LOL - "Fact is, everybody has their own opinion and that's fine but passing a personal opinion off as fact is definitely not fine."

Gotta love the irony of this quote.

Anyway, Nikki has it bascially right. We can argue all day and night about their merits or lack thereof, but it doesn't matter. They aren't going to be inducted for the reasons previously outlined. And, that, my friend, is a fact.

Posted by Etan on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 21:24pm


Becoming corporate" and being created, promoted, and essentially directed by corporate interests are very different things

O Please!! that is to funny, the chicken or the egg huh LOL.....

Posted by mrxyzomg on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 22:12pm


"Becoming corporate" and being created, promoted, and essentially directed by corporate interests are very different things"

O Please!! that is to funny, the chicken or the egg huh LOL.....

_________________________

No. You are entirely missing the point.

Sure, one could argue that the Fab Four eventually morphed into it's own corporation. But they were an organically formed band who came together and wrote and performed their own music.

The Monkees, on the other hand, are referred to as the "Pre-Fab Four" for a very good reason. They were prefabricated. The "band" was comprised of actors who were hired to pretend to be a band for a TV show mostly for kiddies and tweens. And as it's said above, their best and most popular songs for which they are well-remembered were written by hired writers and, lead singing aside, hired musicians. (not to mention the fact that they were absolutely awful live, and you can't blame it on the screaming.)

Honestly, now, can you not see the difference?

Posted by Etan on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 23:22pm


"Gotta love the irony of this quote."

You know, I actually didn't think of that, LOL indeed, LOL, indeed

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 02:06am


The Monkees, on the other hand, are referred to as the "Pre-Fab Four" for a very good reason. They were prefabricated. The "band" was comprised of actors who were hired to pretend to be a band for a TV show mostly for kiddies and tweens. And as it's said above, their best and most popular songs for which they are well-remembered were written by hired writers and, lead singing aside, hired musicians. (not to mention the fact that they were absolutely awful live, and you can't blame it on the screaming.)

Honestly, now, can you not see the difference?
Posted by Etan on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 23:22pm

Hmmm. The difference is there but what does how a band is initially formed have to do with their Influence and Innovation? Just curious as to the point you're trying to make

And the Beatles weren't exactly "formed organically" with the whole Pete Best being replaced with Ringo Starr issue but I'm sure you'll disagree ;)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 02:36am


I'll answer my own question now that I've read back a few posts. You seem to think how the Monkees aren't getting into the RRHOF simply based on how they were formed (which is certainly a biased move at the hands of the "committee"), now what makes me curious is to whether you think the Monkees do deserve to be inducted?

So there you go Etan, I'm not asking you if you think the Monkees will be inducted but do you think they deserve to be inducted?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 02:50am


Correction: ignore the very first "how" in my previous post

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 02:52am


No. You are entirely missing the point.

Sure, one could argue that the Fab Four eventually morphed into it's own corporation. But they were an organically formed band who came together and wrote and performed their own music.

The Fab Four ya mean de Beatles.? Any who tell that to the Temptations , Ronnetts , Surpremes etc etc Ain't nothin organic about Show Biz...LOL

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 06:24am


It's a known fact that the Monkeees are not going to be considered for induction, Tahvo. For all the reasons previously outlined. Time passes, people in power move on or die off and things can change, but I really do think any window of opportunity has passed for them.

Do I personally think they "deserve" to be honored? I suppose decent arguments can be made either way.

When you think of the truly great hits most people remember them for, in most cases the four members themselves played minimal roles in their creation and production. And Wenner et al simply can't see how they can agree to induct four actors into the Hall of Fame just because they were lucky enough to be cast in a TV show. If the Monkees had ever become a great live act, maybe, but they don't even have that to fall back on. It's not just "how" the band was formed; you have to consider their actual limited input on the major recordings. (da hits)

But they tried their damnedest to become a real band, to be taken seriously, to control their own destinies. And they had some success at it. Nesmith was a very talented song writer, Dolenz a great pop singer, Tork a competent musician. No one can argue that the Monkees music isn't a part of American cultural history at this point. My kids knew who they were before they knew who the Beatles were (with no involvement from me) and that's saying something. So that's the argument for their inclusion.

Personally, I think there are several overlooked artists that are more worthy of inclusion, but I won't throw up in the unlikely event they ever get nominated.

And as far as your comment about Ringo's recruitment being similar in some way to the manner in which the Monkees were created and utilized, I think that's a very serious stretch. But I think you know that. ;)



Posted by Etan on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 15:08pm


"It's a known fact that the Monkeees are not going to be considered for induction, Tahvo. For all the reasons previously outlined. Time passes, people in power move on or die off and things can change, but I really do think any window of opportunity has passed for them."

That wasn't my question.

"Do I personally think they "deserve" to be honored? I suppose decent arguments can be made either way."

Yes or No?

"It's not just "how" the band was formed; you have to consider their actual limited input on the major recordings. (da hits)"

Actually no, it's the I&I factor that comes into play and not commercial success but some may argue they had more than their fair of hits, I mean "Daydream Believer" or "I'm a Believer" are about as big hits as a non-legendary band can hope to have, not to mention plenty of other songs (I'm not going to bother listing all of their hits, instead I'll redirect you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees_discography)

"And as far as your comment about Ringo's recruitment being similar in some way to the manner in which the Monkees were created and utilized, I think that's a very serious stretch. But I think you know that. ;)"

I never said Ringo's situation was similar to the Monkees, that would be a bit ridiculous, I was merely mentioning that his inclusion to the Beatles wasn't really "organic" for lack of a better word.

I never said I thought the Monkees were going to be in the RRHOF, there's just too much unfair bias against them, as there is to a lot of other bands I merely said they definitely deserve to be considered, if not inducted, seeing as the Monkees definitely have their place in Rock history. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 15:53pm


Apologies for the poor grammar in my last paragraph

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 07.2.10 @ 15:55pm


You know, when I came onto this site my mindset about them being inducted was a flat-out "hell no." In retrospect, my shift away from this stance might've been when The Monkees were inducted into Rock Hall Revisited and I didn't feel too cold about it. First pop group to use the Moog? Definite innovation there, and I see Gitarzan's point about the show possibly being the inspiration for MTV. Also, they did eventually write their own stuff and play their own instruments (and "Daily Nightly" is a fantastic song.) Everyone used session musicians in the 60's. I still don't necessarily view them as a huge omission, but I wouldn't raise too much of a stink if they were inducted.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 08.3.10 @ 19:49pm


Sam
I am happy you have open mind. I have been pushing them for a longtime.... They were as far as I know the first with a TV show of that type., I don't really think there has been one since...
Great singers, fun actors an fantastic songs . The Monkees inspired many a young musician ...Who could ask for more?!!!

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 08.3.10 @ 20:07pm


I quite agree.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 08.5.10 @ 21:52pm


The "Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame" is rubbish. Who elected the morons that run that "institution" anything? The Monkees are great, and don't need validation from the RRHOF. Ironic that a supposedly "plastic" band has not been recognized by a plastic phony organization that heaps praise on talentless johnny-come lately's while legends languish in the can. Oh, I forgot, some rock and roll bands suck because they were successful and used tv as a vehicle 20 years before MTV, while others like the Sex Pistols elevated music to a new form of godhood. :)

Posted by thehammer on Wednesday, 09.22.10 @ 20:50pm


Well said thehammer I do wounder about the sex Pistol .. To me they kinda remind me of .......... Well they we just kids so I quess it was Ok .. A bit loud to me..

Posted by mrxyxomg on Wednesday, 09.22.10 @ 20:56pm


"Oh, I forgot, some rock and roll bands suck because they were successful and used tv as a vehicle 20 years before MTV, while others like the Sex Pistols elevated music to a new form of godhood. :)"

I actually support The Monkees for induction, but you're not helping their cause by using this as a forum to bash the Pistols... it's irrelevant what you think of me, because the fact remains that they're far more significant to music than The Monkees (not an insult, just a fact.)

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 09.25.10 @ 13:20pm


If there ever was a case of a group getting In this is beyond a case.. It is a crime..

Posted by mrxyxomg on Saturday, 10.2.10 @ 06:53am


They are better and more influential than the Hollies or the Dave Clark Five. So they meet the very minimum standard. The Monkees were actually very good performers: they were legitimate musicians. There was more to them than the songwriting and production.

Posted by Timothy Horrigan on Friday, 10.8.10 @ 21:53pm


Dolenz and Jones really couldn't be considered "legitimate musicians". They were good singers, but they were hired for being actors and for their look and fit with the others. Tork and Nesmith may have been musicians, but they too weren't hired for that reason. Mike Nesmith comes the closest to being a reason to allow them in (song writing), but I don't see it happening because most of the material that they are remembered for was created FOR them rather than BY them. So as a collective group themselves they can't be said to have had too much influence. So I vote NO.

Posted by JimDee on Wednesday, 10.13.10 @ 22:32pm


I'm Not Your Stepping Stone was as good as anything else out at that time. I know it wasn't originally done by them but they owned it. Valerie was pretty solid as well. And we all know ho good they were at the pop stuff. Let them in. Neil Diamond also. They both get to much crap for how great they actually were.

Posted by Downboy on Friday, 10.15.10 @ 04:27am


It's kind of funny because one of guys resemble Billie Joe Armstrong...I forgot his name though, my mom likes them.

Posted by Brittany on Monday, 10.25.10 @ 09:34am


I must throw my two cents in. I did not read ALL the comments but, I read enough. I'm 47 and Regardless these guys made Music. The sang and when they were ALLOWED the played their own instruments too (Mike & Peter WERE Musicians and Could Play)and they had some Great Songs too! They didn't Write All the songs that were hits but, NEITHER DID ELVIS! "Last Train To Clarksville" and "Daydream Believer" were #1 hits! And other top 10 hits were;"A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You", "Pleasant Valley Sunday" and "Valleri"
GIVE THESE GUYS THE CHANCE THE DESERVE AND QUIT...MESSING AROUND. Other people Nominated instead of the Monkees (to name a few); Donna Summer? Good Singer but DISCO DIED! and The Beastie Boys? Are you Kidding me! RNRHF...GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!

Posted by Barbara S. on Wednesday, 10.27.10 @ 12:06pm


So why is it a problem that Donna Summer and The Beasties are nominated again?

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 10.30.10 @ 06:01am


Too bad The Beasties were better and more influential than the monkees can ever hope to be.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.30.10 @ 06:08am


FWIW, John Lennon was a good friend of Mike Nesmith. The band may have been formed for a TV show, but the personalities they chose were all four experienced, A-List entertainers and top-shelf songwriters. The Monkees should have been inducted into the R&RHOF a long time ago. Now that Darlene Love has been inducted, The Monkees and Kate Bush are my next projects :-D

Posted by Zorak on Tuesday, 12.21.10 @ 03:07am


The Monkees were a unique phenominon....

Two Actors from very differing backgrounds....one from California, one from Manchester, England

Two musicians....again from very differing backgrounds...one from New York folk scene, the other from Texas a 'country boy'

NO WAY should it work, yes they do gell as actors in a mytical group on TV....after passing auditions...

They hardly ever see each other in the recording studio, just mostly Mickey & Davy adding Lead vocals - the TV show taking up all day, voicing pre-cut backing tracks took all night !

Al Jardine said 'Being a Beach Boy took over my life'

Leonard Nimoy spoke of doing 'Star Trek' dominated his life...

These four guys were doing BOTH....at the same time !

then expected to TOUR !

- Mike got in the odd song of his, and they then turned on the 'Hollywood machine' that built them - Nesmith was almost fired (Shades of Pernell Roberts in 'Bonanza') - yet incredibly he succeded in wrenching musical control from Don Kirshner BACK in 1967
- that is MORE 'REVOLUTIONARY' than ANY PUNK band could ever hope to be...!!!

The Beatles had to set up their own company...and then stick with EMI...to obtain greater artistic control...with all their cash & standing...thus Nesmith's achievement is even more astounding...

then the four guys have to 'Do it for themselves'....and DID - 'Headquarters', 'Pisces, Aquarius...'were splendid & successful albums

the Monkees boosted the songwriting standing & helped the careers careers of Neil Diamond, Harry Nilsson, John Stewart

- they had Jimi Hendrix as a support act...and they were good friends with jimi...and The Beatles (who they met up with in Britain)

They had guys like Tim Buckley & Frank Zappa guest on their TV show....

their Avant Garde surreal film 'Head' boosted Jack Nicolson's career....and 'Easy Rider' WAS his next big role

they used a moog synthesiser (Mickey Dolenz with Moog pioneer Paul Beaver) on their records in 1967 ('Daily Nightly', 'Star Collector','She Hang's out' etc)....TWO YEARS before even The Beatles did in 1969...

The Monkees music took in so many styles...from sixties Punk ('No Time', 'I'm Not Your Steppin' Stone') to country ('What Am I Doing Hangin' Round ?') to Protest ('For Pete's Sake', 'Zor And Zam') to pure pop ('Dayream Believer') to social comment ('Pleasant Valley Sunday') to nostalgia ('Magnolia Simms') to surreal ('Writing Wrongs', 'Randy Scouse Git'/Alternate Title') to wistful ballads ('I Wanna Be Free'), to ultra fast delivered vocal collages ('Goin' Down') to driving rock ('Circle Sky')

they mixed honking saxes with fuzz guitars ('Valleri') even before the Stones did on 'Honky Tonk Woman' or 'Brown Sugar')

The Much respected Paul Butterfield Blues Band covered The Monkees song 'Mary Mary'....

Dolenz & Nesmith harmonised well as co-lead vocalists...indeed their combined harmonies on 'She Hangs out' had Beach Boys qualities.

Davy Jones voice was limited in range ..but was very effective ('Daydream Believer','A Little Bit Me..', Early Morning Blues and...' )

Seldom if ever can the CAST of a TV show have melded into an instant group, rebelled against the establishment so well, then created such lasting music in so many differing styles, using cutting edge techniques & new instruments, and influenced their more established Musical contemporaries, with everyone from The Beatles to Tim Buckley to Frank Zappa duly respecting them....

The Monkees mat have been 'created' for a TV show...Rock's first 'Test Tube Baby'...but once alive, they grew into a REAL band....and a strong & memorable one

'Digs' from say The Byrds ('So You Wanna Be A Rock & Roll Star')were unkind and unfair (Did not the same sessionmen play on 'Mr.Tambourine Man' ? - plus Beach Boys, Mamas & Papas etc records...?)

The Beatles themselves used sessionmen & later musician friends....AND The Monkees had better reason than anyone as they were rather busy making a televsion series !

The fact their music has become a memorable part of the Sixties popular culture...and their TV show continues to be much loved - while their surreal film 'Head' has drawn critical praise (even footage from Vietnam was included in the offbeat film)...all proves that despite their unusual creation The Monkees emerged from being merely 'Hollywood machine' puppets...to make a long lasting & important contribution to the Pop music & Rock scene in music, TV, Film & influence on others, both fans & famous established artists (performers & songwriters alike)....

....plus they were early TRUE 'Rebels' (take note Punks & 'Indy' folk!)...they sold millions of Records, concert tickets, and still entertain millions of people..

Their continued absence from the Rock & Roll Hall of fame...probably tells us more about THAT Institution than anything else

Posted by Rob on Wednesday, 12.22.10 @ 06:41am


Given their achievements on the charts during arguably the greatest era in music history, their contributions to expanding the way music is promoted through video, and, most importantly, influencing countless artists and musicians over the years...it's amazing The Monkees aren't given serious consideration for what they have meant to the music industry for over 40 years.

Let's forget that The Monkees did play instruments and write songs....Did the great vocal bands of the 1960's play instruments? The Four Tops, The Temptations, The Supremes, The Four Seasons, etc. Last I checked, they all are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by Von on Wednesday, 12.29.10 @ 23:08pm


No they didn't, and most of the Motown groups either had songs written for them or did covers. The Beatles, Stones... hell, even Zeppelin hired Ian Stewart to play on "Boogie With Stu", so the "not a real band" thing doesn't work for the most part.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 01.8.11 @ 05:29am


The Monkees were a great band and produced great songs. Last Train to Clarksville, Papa Gene's Blues, What Am I Doing Hangin' Round...it's all timeless Rock and Roll that stands up today. Who cares how they got together, bands get together one way or another, as childhood friends, or, in the Monkees case, as talented professionals getting together to produce great music.

Posted by Steve on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 03:37am


To correct what Ian Chambers said, it's totally untrue that until The Beatles brilliant 1965 Rubber Soul album,they were still doing covers.Their great A Hard Day's Night album was written and recorded (and *every* instrument was played only by them,)from February 1964 to early summer and was released in July 1964. It's known as the only Beatles album that only has all Lennon-McCartney orginals, not because of no covers,but because of no George Harrison songs on it as well.

And to correct a lot of other posters here, The Beatles played all of their instruments(great by the way)in almost all of their songs. On John's great hard rocker,the single version of REvolution keyboardest Nikcy Hopkins played on it,and he played on Rolling Stones songs as well. And except for a few songs on Revolver with the horns on For No One,Got To Get You Into My Life,and strings on Eleonar Rigby, on Sgt.Pepper a few added horns or strings although Paul wrote more of the music then John did in A Day and A Life,and Paul co-conducted the British Philharmonic Ochestra with George Martin for this song , and George Martin playing piano on John's In My Life On Rubber Soul,and Eric Clapton on George's While My Guitar Gently Weeps on The White album, and the strings on Paul's Yesterday with him on acoustic guitar, The Beatles are the musicians. Paul even plays a flute on his beautiful song,Fool On The Hill on their Magical Mystery Tour album.

And The Beatles were one of the first music artists to use the Mellotron which Paul played on John's Strawberry Fields Forever.One of The Beatles tape operators Jerry Boys said in great Beatles REcording Sessions book,that John owned one of the first ones and kept it in a wooden cabinet,and he said The Beatles used it in ways nobody ever thought of before.

And it's really something that ignorant Beatles hater Liam hasn't posted any hate for The Monkees,who actually really were manufactured as actors playing a TV pop/rock group,and who didn't work their as*ses off playing since they were teenagers,and playing 8 hours a night in sleazy cr*ppy clubs in Hamburg Germany for 2 years in a row,taking speed pills to stay awake to do it,and then played live successfully in The Cavern Club for several years and then toured England for a year before they made it big in America as The Beatles did!And John and Paul were already writing hit songs for other artists as early as 1963 just when their own song writing success was getting off the ground,they wrote for singer Celia Black,Peter and Gordon,Billy J.Krammer and The Dakotas,and gave The Rolling Stones one of their first hits in late 1963 with the rock and roll song,I Wanna Be You're Man.

I love The Monkees TV show by the way,and I'm watching it recently on the new Antenna TV station,and I hadn't seen it since 1989 when my local station used to air it. They were all very good actors in this crazy,zanny funny show. And Micky,Mike and Davy were all very good singers with good voices,and Mike Nesmith did write some good songs.And it's true that most of their hits were written by other good successful song writers,but some songs by artists that were not hits,but album tracks are sometimes better than the hits.This is the case with many of Paul McCartney's early-mid 1970's songs.

Posted by monkey on Saturday, 03.26.11 @ 17:58pm


THe 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide really doesn't like The Monkees much at all. They say the album,Listen To The Band takes them far too seriously,and only gave 3 and half stars to two of their greatest hits albums,and a 3 star to their only live album from the 60's and a few other albums. They gave all of their other albums only 1 ir 2 stars.And they caled their canon slight.

Posted by monkey on Saturday, 03.26.11 @ 18:47pm


I just noticed I made a few typing mistakes. There really should be an edit button on here!

Posted by monkey on Saturday, 03.26.11 @ 18:50pm


Influence: Many bands have covered The Monkees, stepping stone was a favourite for punk rock bands to cover. they also influenced The Replacements.
Innovation: Not much here.
Commerciall sucess: They had tons of hits in the 60's and a huge comeback in the 80's.
Critical respect: Unfortunately many critics can't look past their beginnings from a TV show despite the fact that they all wanted to be musically independent of the show.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 07.10.11 @ 13:16pm


http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_halloffame_x4.html

THE DIGITAL DREAM DOOR

The Monkees

Don't laugh, the Monkees have more than enough success and plenty of influence in the rise of the video to be considered strong contenders under normal circumstances. The problem is their image, beginning with how they were formed for a TV show and the nagging belief that they were never authentic artists. Though accepted by the music community at the time (Hendrix opened for them, Neil Young and Steven Stills played with them, Lennon was a huge fan) their credibility today is non-existent. Probably have no chance with voters despite their actual credentials.

Qualifications: 7 - Solid Choice

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 08.9.11 @ 08:06am


if this is an issue of being manufactured, in a way the beatles and rolling stones were also. brian epstein the beatles manager thought that pete best didnt fit so the found another drummer. also with the rolling stones, the people at decca didnt think that ian stewart fit and either so they got rid of him. hmmm.... manufacturing is more common than thought..

Posted by Tyler on Sunday, 11.6.11 @ 13:41pm


Now that Don Kirshner is in the RRHOF, it could be possible for the Monkees to be nominated at least or inducted at most.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 12.9.11 @ 03:52am


RIP, Davy.

Posted by DC on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 13:17pm


Bilboard is reporting that Davy Jones died from a heart attack today.

Posted by Paul on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 13:26pm


RIP Davy.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 13:31pm


RIP Davy.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 14:31pm


RIP Davy - maybe now the snobs will soften up and accept the Monkees for what they are - a superb RnR band that ruled the mid 60's second only to the Beatles.

Time for the stigma attached to them to be thrown out. If the Motown bands are in, then so should the Monkees.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 14:41pm


Agreed. It's rather sad that this is what would be needed to get them in.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 14:49pm


Very sad

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 15:02pm


RIP a great everything

Posted by happy on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 15:13pm


Knowing the Hall's sudden love inducting people after they die, they'll probably get in this year...

...Something that should've been done a good ten years ago.

Hate to say it, but if the Hall keeps them out due to the hypocritical "not a real band" stigma, then they're a bunch of assholes. I actually hope the surviving Monkees, in honor of Davy, boycott the Hall. Now its too little, too late IMO.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 15:58pm


Sad to hear the news.

R.I.P. Davy

Posted by Steve Z on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 17:12pm


Farewell Davy Jones. You're the reason David Bowie couldn't use his real name for a stage name, and you're part of the reason so much great music still lives on.

Another good song to check out is "The Girl I Knew Somewhere", the first hit that the Monkees played their instruments on.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 03.2.12 @ 22:21pm


Why in the world do people think if they didn't write their own songs, they don't belong? Good grief, hundreds if not thousands of entertainers don't write their songs. Look no further than Elvis, for Pete's sake. ALL entertainers use studio musicians. Many vocal groups were as a result of auditions. There is NO legitimate reason to keep the Monkees out of the Hall of the Fame. Jann Wenner and his cronies need to get a grip and face reality. The Monkees became a legitimate band DESPITE the series. As for the series, it became an important part of sixties culture and was a huge influence on the music video. All of my reasons here cannot be seriously disputed. Induct them into the HOF ASAP.

Posted by susannunes on Sunday, 03.4.12 @ 13:33pm


Agreed. Many of the motown groups in the hall had no part in the making of their songs other than singing and playing the occasional instrument maybe. It's obvious that the only thing keeping them out is jann's hate for them.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.4.12 @ 14:30pm


Yes. And after them they should induct the Archies, the Partridge Family and the Brady Bunch.

Posted by astrodog on Sunday, 03.4.12 @ 15:41pm


'Cept those three weren't anywhere near as popular as the Monkees.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 03.4.12 @ 16:20pm


The Partridge Family had four top ten albums, including a US No. 1, and a number of hits, including the No. 1 "I Think I Love You."

The Monkees were certainly more popular. They had four No. 1 albums in a year's span (1966-67).

I really don't have an strong feelings against the Monkees. Mike Nesmith for example was a talented songwriter, writing Different Drum among others. And Jones could sing.

But the issue is why they were popular. As the Patridge Family example shows, the TV manufactured group was very potent. Why? Because network shows virtually monopolized TV at that time, which virtually monopolized entertainment (no cable, three or four channels, no internet). Think of Glee, then multiply that by a thousand and you can get a sense of the commercial advantage a TV show created group like the Monkees had. Given that type of stage, it would have been almost impossible for them not to have hits. I mean even the Partridge Family did using the same formula.

So to me there has to be an asterisk associated with their commercial performance. There is simply no way to fairly compare the commercial performance of a TV group created for and showcased on a network show in 1966 and bands that had to break through via the traditional route.

And yes, when you add to this the fact that their hits were written for them by professional songwriters, it makes them doubly manufactured. If someone wants to claim that they were as historically important as Elvis or even the Supremes, by all means.

So I can't see it personally. But who knows?

Posted by astrodog on Sunday, 03.4.12 @ 18:54pm


Hmm. So "I Think I Love You" did go to #1, forgot about that.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, I guess only time will tell if the Monkees will get inducted or not.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 03.5.12 @ 14:20pm


this needs to happen.

Posted by carol on Tuesday, 03.6.12 @ 14:44pm


"Yes. And after them they should induct the Archies, the Partridge Family and the Brady Bunch."--astrodog

Actually, I think the Monkees would be the perfect gateway inductee for indie/underground bands... the Monkees were among the first to proclaim "We're the young generation and we've got something to say," and then proceed to release a bunch of records that didn't say anything. Just like indie/underground!

*ducks*

I keed! I keed!

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 03.10.12 @ 14:17pm


I believe there were two posts made here earlier today by someone called Mackdown that were mistakenly cleared up with all the spam from this morning.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 10:58am


Unlike The Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch, The Monkees could play their own instruments and were talented songwriters as well. Anybody who tosses them aside with the "not a real band" excuse needs to go listen to Headquarters.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 17:20pm


The issue is not so much whether they were real or manufactured. The issue is whether their fame was manufactured. (It was like Glee on steroids). Whether they could play their instruments or even write songs like Nesmith is actually secondary. And for all their supposed talents, it wasn't their compositions that they are remembered for.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 17:40pm


They certainly had an easier path to stardom than most bands, but if their fame was truely manufactured they would've been done the moment they split up from Kirshner. That obviously didn't happen and when it was just the four of them they did just fine for themselves. For that to occur, there must've been some sort of musical talent there.

"...it wasn't their compositions that they are remembered for."

And to be fair, the songs of theirs that are remembered are seen as some of the best of their era, so it might be a little unfair to compare a great song like Daily Nightly or Randy Scout Git to I'm A Believer.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 18:02pm


Their first four albums during the series went No. 1. Their fifth, still during the series, went No. 3. Their sixth, after the series was cancelled, went No. 42 and it was basically down hill from there, with their 1970 album not even charting. (I know Head from 1968 was a bit "out there"). But even if they had continued at the same level, that doesn't change the fact that their fame was manufactured by network television at a time when the clout of network TV was gigantic. With that type of fame, it wasn't just going to dissolve overnight. As I've maintained all along, they had talent, but that's not why they took off.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 18:13pm


But once again, it obviously took a certain amount of talent to keep the hot streak they had going, even if it was only for a year. From 67-68 they very much operated as a band and nowhere in the Hall's criteria does it say that every band had to have been sweating it out in clubs to "pay their dues". Punishing them for the few months of their existence when they were totally maufactured is a bit ridiculous. At the end of the day what started out as maufactured became real and The Monkees deserve alot of credit for not riding the same gravy train that the Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch did and fighting for their ability to make their own music. If that doesn't fit the definiton of "rock", then I don't know what does.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 18:27pm


The minute the show went off the air, pretty much so did they. To go from 1,1,1,1,3 to 42 to oblivion in barely a year is impressive. I respect your point of view.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 03.14.12 @ 19:51pm


Looks like my posts got deleted for some reason. Anyway, my point was that there is no rational reason for keeping the Monkees out of the Rock Hall of Fame. The band sold 65 million records and changed the face of pop music. One of the comments I responded to earlier was the claim there should be an asterisk next to their record sales due to the t.v. show. That is absurd. We have an entire generation of artists since the early 1980's who literally built their entire careers on MTV and music video. Is there an asterisk next to Madonna's record sales? The "Lucky Star" and "Like a Virgin" videos catapulted her to overnight stardom. Is there an asterisk next to Britney Spears record sales? Her dressed up like a schoolgirl with a lollipop in her mouth had more to do with her success than probably anything else. Even Michael Jackson would not have had near the career he did without the help of MTV. Who cares if the Monkees didn't play their own instruments. Whitney Houston sure got a nice tribute at the Grammys despite the fact she never wrote any songs, played no instruments and couldn't perform live worth a crap at ANY point in her career. The Monkees actually did contribute musically on several of their records with Mike Nesmith writing and producing a good chunk of their work. Peter Tork was also an excellent musician. They performed their music live and were all excellent singers who made all those songs distinctively their own.

Posted by Mackdown on Thursday, 03.15.12 @ 22:50pm


@astrodog: The rise of MTV completed negates your claims. The Monkees popularity fell off in the late 60's because they didn't have the benefit of a 24 Hour Music channel running their videos day and night and the production/songwriting team that put the band together started to dissipate at that time. The studio literally dropped them like a hot rock after they band started demanding more control and the rest is history. Do you really want me to go through the laundry list of other acts that were successful for a few years and then dropped off? The Monkees had FIVE top 5 records. They are no a VERY short list of other artists who accomplished the same thing. I don't care if that happened over a 3 year span or a 10 year span. The fact is you are applying a criteria to the Monkees you are not applying to anyone else. The Monkees sold 65 million records and pioneered music video. If thats not considered significant enough for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame than the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a complete joke. Especially considering the fact they are now allowing in rap and hip hop artists who built their careers ripping off other artists.

Posted by Mackdown on Thursday, 03.15.12 @ 23:04pm


@astrodog:
DURAN DURAN
Duran Duran: #3
Rio: #1 (#2 UK)
Seven and the Ragged Tiger: #8
Notorious: #12
Big Thing: #24
Liberty: DID NOT CHART
The Wedding Album: DID NOT CHART

WHITNEY HOUSTON:
Whitney Houston: #2
Whitney: #1
I'm Your Baby Tonight: #3
My Love Is Your Love: #13
Just Whitney: #9
???????

THE SHIRELLES (currently in the rock and roll hall of fame)
Had 7 hits on first few albums, two out of the next three records peaked at #59 and #38.

RITCHIE VALENS also in the rock hall of fame - Did not write his signature song or most of his other songs and barely played the guitar.

DUSTY SPRINGFIELD - also in the rock hall wrote none of her own songs, played no instruments and also had fairly brief run of success before falling off the map completely in the late 60's.

The Supremes and Tina Turner are both in the rock hall of fame as well. Neither played any instruments or wrote any music.

Posted by Mackdown on Thursday, 03.15.12 @ 23:57pm


Mackdown-Do you honestly think the MTV analogy is convincing? (I doubt it; it seems specious on its face). How about the Ed Sullivan show? For your analogy to truly work the band in question would have to have been created by MTV and be the only band it showcased, and further MTV would have had to be one of a handful of stations in existence with a near monopoly on on TV viewership. Al the bands of that era had a chance to promote themselves on MTV, just as many bands had the chance to be on Ed Sullivan or Top of the Pops. In contrast the Monkees TV show was created solely to showcase and sell them, unlike all of their contemporaries until the Partidge Family, who were as I noted surprisingly successful.
At the end of the day Monkees supporters always go back to the millions of records they sold in comparison to their contemporaries. But unavoidably if you do that than you have to admit the gigantic advantage they had over those same comtemporaries. No amount of waek analogies is going to chang that. Their fame was a direct and intended result of being the pet commercial project of a major TV network in 1966. Virtually the minute the show ended, so did they. And yes, adding to the manufactured nature of their fame is the fact that all of their hits were written for them. If they had written some of their major hits, then this claim could be better refuted. And it's not so much that a band must per se struggle to gain fame, as it is that unlike the Monkees, whose fame was handed to them on a silver platter, all the bands they compete with for recognition did. If you refuse to admit the difference, then you never will. Such is being a fan.
Anyway, probably will never happen. Sorry.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 03.16.12 @ 00:55am


Its not an analogy its a fact. Would Madonna have had the record sales she did without MTV? Absolutely not. Would Britney Spears have even been signed to a record deal? Absolutely not. Would Lady Gaga be anything other than a Gucci ad? Probably not. How many records of Thriller would have sold had the Billie Jean and Beat It videos not become part of the very fabric of 80's culture? It if was so easy to simply cast a band for a t.v. show and then sell 65 million records then why hasn't anyone else done it? And why would the band have to have been created by MTV? MTV was a HUGE marketing tool that changed everything and you're living in a dreamworld if you think otherwise. You keep going back to the same crap about they didn't write their music but apparently the fact that almost nobody in popular music anymore writes their own music OR plays their own instruments is completely lost on you. The fact they did not write their major hits is totally irrelevant. Nearly every artist's fame is manufactured and you're a naive fool if you believe otherwise. The Ed Sullivan show aired ONCE A WEEK, not 24 hour round the clock advertising the way artists in the 1980's enjoyed on MTV which was a cultural phenomenon that far surpassed anything happening on a comedy variety show t.v. slot in the 1960's. Yes, the minute the Monkees show ended and the studio stopped giving them any kind of serious promotion or advertising they fell off like countless other artists have. Duran Duran and Whitney Houston had the benefit of MTV continuing to play their videos and major record labels promoting them and still fell into oblivion after only a few albums. I don't hear you bitching about them. Christ, look at American Idol. Talk about manufactured fame. People talk about Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood as serious artists these days but pompous jerks are snubbing their nose at the Monkees? Gimme a break.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.16.12 @ 02:50am


If my analogy is wrong, please tell me EXACTLY how A-list stars Britney Spears, Whitney Houston or Justin Timberlake are any different or deserve any more respect for their work than the Monkees do. You don't think their fame was manufactured? You are simply not living in reality if you believe otherwise.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.16.12 @ 03:23am


Mackdown, your original posts got accidentally deleted. I believe the following was one of your posts?

-----------
@astrodog: The emergence of MTV and music video negates pretty much everything you just said. And do you really think artists these days make it on the basis of their sheer talent or by the massive marketing campaigns associated with them? Do you think Lady Gaga would be anything more than a Gucci ad if she had to actually rely on the computer generated noise she writes? Or what about Madonna?? Has she ever written a song or played an instrument? 90% of the reason for Madonna's success was a scantilly clad outfit on the Lucky Star video. What about Britney Spears? You don't think MTV showing her day and night dressed like a schoolgirl with a lollipop her mouth had anything to do with the fact she was able to sell million of bad records? Gimme a break.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 03.16.12 @ 04:32am


I htae this idea that all artists nowadays ar eonly famous because of marketing, if that was true then why do artists like cee lo green and adele achieve great fame? they're not exactly beautiful, it's of the strength of their music they did.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 03.16.12 @ 14:19pm


I fully recognize that MTV changed how music was marketed. I've made that point myself often enough. (I wonder: Would Adele have been as big at the height of the MTV era as opposed to now?) But I don't think its an effective analogy for the reasons I've stated. As I am unconvinced, it is therefore sealed for all eternity that the Monkees will never be inducted. Never ever ever. :)

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 02:30am


@astrodog: At the end of the day there are no rules on how to become famous or sell records. It either happens or it doesn't. Some achieve fame as singer/songwriters and some achieve fame because of their ability to deliver a song and marketability. I can respect your point of view but I hope you are at least consistent. Going by your criteria, Whitney Houston and Britney Spears should not be candidates for the rock HOF ever. And the Shirelles, Dusty Sprinfield and Ritchie Valens do not deserve to be in the HOF.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 03:43am


Whitney Houston was the Monkees with less talent.

Consider this: She will probably be in the rock HOF someday or at least a serious candidate. Whitney was working as a MODEL when somebody decided to transform her into a pop star because she could sing (good voice, but not great). She wrote NONE of the songs she performed, could not play any instruments and was terrible at live performances. Her career was catapulted by a hit movie and a song she did not write that became her signature tune. After a few hit albums she steadily declined and faded into obscurity. A pitiful comeback attempt and horrible album were all that followed until she died. She is the Monkees minus the acting ability and even less musical talent.

Now consider this:

A young performer is cast for a t.v. show and a group to be a singer. He plays no instruments and is not a songwriter. He becomes a teen heart-throb, makes a few huge records and then goes back to being an actor again. Who am I talking about?

A) Justin Timberlake
B) Davy Jones
C) BOTH

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 03:57am


So you think if someone who dosen't write their own songs shouldn't be in the hall?

well hell, if you want to kick elvis out feel free.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 07:31am


There is an excellent documentary called "The Wrecking Crew" about the group of session musicians that included the great Tommy Tedesco, Glen Campbell and Hal Blaine who did the Monkees' and countless other tracks for many other groups. In addition to the Monkees this group of session players also made up Phil Spector's wall of sound, played nearly all the Beach Boys studio tracks (thats right the Beach Boys didn't play their studio instruments either), The Yardbirds, the Mamas and the Papas, etc. etc. etc. Seeing the shocking number of groups and artists who employed their services in the 50's and 60's you'll never snub your nose at the Monkees again. They were doing the exact same thing countless others were doing at that time.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 13:40pm


@astrodog: So are you suggesting "I'm a Believer", "A Little Bit Me, a Little Bit You", "Daydream Believer" and "Pleasant Valley Sunday" would not have been smash hits without the t.v. show? Those were great songs written by great songwriters such as Neil Diamond and Carole King. They would have been huge hits regardless. The reason the Monkees record sales sank like a stone was because Don Kirshner was not involved after 1967 and they didn't have that great songwriting team anymore. They foolishly thought they could do it themselves and the whole thing fell apart. The Monkees music was also directly tied to the t.v. studio so when the show was canceled after season 2 everyone that had been a part of their success simply walked away. Had they been able to get along with Kirshner the Monkees would most certainly have continued churning out big hits after the show ended. Keep in mind "I'm a Believer" had already been the #1 song weeks before the t.v. series debut.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 13:59pm


Mackdown: To quote your own words: "They foolishly thought they could do it themselves and the whole thing fell apart." That's about as damning as anything I could have written.

They had teams of songwriters writing for them due to the TV show. It's impossible to separate their commercial run (four No. 1 albums in one year) from the show. Can't be avoided. It's not credible to contend that they would have sold all those millions of albums without the show, and that's the crux of their claim. And all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put their case back togther again.

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 14:57pm


Again, please tell me exactly what the difference is between them and any of the other artists I mentioned. What do you think the results would have been had N'Sync attempted to go into the studio to produce, compose and play their own music? You keep going back to the fact they didn't write much of their music as countless other artists (many of which are in the rock HOF) did, but that point is completely irrelevant. Its not impossible to separate their commercial run from the t.v. show at all as I have already explained. They were great songs written by great songwriters that would have been hits regardless. Whether those songwriters came about as a result of the t.v. show or as a result of marketing efforts for a new boy band makes no difference. You don't think Britney Spears has always had the best team of songwriters around her or do you think she was coming up with all those great ideas from her mom's trailer in Louisiana? Its most certainly credible to contend they would have had the same success without the show as "I'm A Believer" was already a massive hit before the show even aired. If what you're attempting is to make a case against them you're not doing a very convincing job of it. You're using a criteria for judging the Monkees you don't apply to anyone else and you've yet to name one difference between their path to success and the path to success of the other artists I mentioned. I'll ask again: What is the difference between Whitney Houston and the Monkees besides the fact they had more talent?

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 21:24pm


I'm not saying the show had nothing to do with their success, of course it did. All I am saying is their career path to success was near identical to the career paths of countless other artists who are never judged in the same way the Monkees are. If you could stick them in a time machine and transport them to today, how do you think people would react? They just sold 65 million records and had a hit t.v. show they would betting nothing but a wave of accolades and praise. Nobody would care even a little they didn't write or play their own material. You're looking at them in wrong context. Nobody is saying they're Led Zeppelin or the Beatles. They were a singing group. Nothing more. They should be judged against other singing acts as the ones I mentioned earlier.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 21:56pm


DAVID, Micky, Peter and Mike NOW. Or ASAP. They should have been in a long time ago, just like the Nash-era Hollies should have been.

Posted by Elizabeth on Tuesday, 03.20.12 @ 23:27pm


DAVID, Micky, Peter and Mike NOW. Or ASAP. They should have been in a long time ago, just like the Nash-era Hollies should have been.

Posted by Elizabeth on Tuesday, 03.20.12 @ 23:31pm


DAVID, Micky, Peter and Mike NOW. Or ASAP. They should have been in a long time ago, just like the Nash-era Hollies should have been.

Posted by Elizabeth on Tuesday, 03.20.12 @ 23:31pm


Elizabeth you couldn't of said it any better!

Posted by Happy on Tuesday, 03.20.12 @ 23:34pm


Neil Diamond and Don Kirshner are in! The Monkees are next!

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 03.21.12 @ 06:21am


Another that should be considered for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is GLEN CAMPBELL who was the session guitarist on alot of the Monkees records.

Posted by Mackdown on Thursday, 03.22.12 @ 00:30am


"Its most certainly credible to contend they would have had the same success without the show as "I'm A Believer" was already a massive hit before the show even aired"
--------------------------------------------------

Actually the TV show debuted on September 12, 1966. I'm a Believer was released by the Monkees on November 21, 1966 and hit No. 1 the week of December 31, 1966. To give a sense of their popularity after the show premiered, preorders for the song topped one million.
The single they did release before the show premiered, Last Train to Clarksville, was released on August 16, 1966 but did not hit No. 1 until the week of November 5, 1966. The Monkees first album was released October 10, 1966.
So to be accurate the claim that they would have been just as succcessful without the show is baseless. We always strive to get our facts straight, except when we don't. :)

Posted by astrodog on Thursday, 03.22.12 @ 02:50am


I was wrong it was "Last Train To Clarksville" that was released prior to the show and was a major hit before the show even aired. If you read my last post, I admitted the show was a major part of their success, but you are contending the show was the only reason for their success and THAT is completely baseless. With the team of songwriters and musicians they had they would have sold millions of albums regardless. The Beatles and Elvis also took off after the whole nation saw the on the Ed Sullivan Show. Do you have a problem with them as well?
At this point I'm not sure what your beef with the Monkees is. That they used t.v. as a medium for success? As I have already pointed out they are FAR from the only artists to do that. Sonny & Cher, Glen Campbell, Roy Clark, and virtually every major artist from the 1980's on also used t.v. to propel their careers. That they didn't write or perform some of their songs on their albums? That notion is so laughably absurd its ridiculous. The Monkees weren't doing anything the majority of the music business were doing at that time. The Beach Boys, Jan & Dean, The Byrds, the Mamas and the Papas, etc. also used the Wrecking Crew for their studio work.
They probably won't get inducted into the Rock Hall of Fame but who cares? The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a pathetic joke anyway.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 02:26am


I'm mean seriously who cares about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? The whole thing is a joke that is a collection of the subjective musical tastes of a few self righteous jerks at Rolling Stone magazine. Consider that not only the Monkeys but the Moody Blues, Glen Campbell, Rush, The Pixies, The Cure, Deep Purple, ELO and Heart are not in the RRHOF but Grand Master Flash and The Beastie Boys - a group best known for a beer guzzling frat party song, are in.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 02:34am


As long as the Monkees and the Pixies are never inducted, I can die happy.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 13:18pm


This Monkee's Gone To Heaven?

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 14:11pm


What's wrong with The Pixies?

Also, @Mackdown: if the most you know about the Beastie Boys is Fight For Your Right you know nothing about themm

Posted by GFW on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 15:04pm


What's wrong with The Pixies?

Posted by GFW on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 15:04pm
--------------------------------------------------
What you have to understand here, is that the Pixies have been credited w/influencing many a 90's act, a decade astro finds questionable (I say this in the most charitable of manners, of course :)

As a result, he must take up sides against any & all who even think of positioning themselves in the corner of this particular decade. Hence, said dismissal of the Pixies.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 17:35pm


well Zappa influenced alot of pretentious pricks but we don't keep him out.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 18:54pm


@astrodog: Okay so then you admit this has nothing to do with whether or not the Monkees or Pixies deserve to be inducted, its simply a personal dislike you have for their music. Unfortunately for you your opinion isn't worth a shred of used tissue paper.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 23:38pm


@GFW: Frat party classic "Fight For Your Right" is the Beastie Boys most famous song. Do they have some other music that is interesting? Sure. But there is no way in hell they deserve to be in the Rock Hall of Fame before the Moody Blues, ELO, Glen Campbell or Rush. They don't really deserve to be there at all.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 23:43pm


Posted by GFW on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 15:04pm
--------------------------------------------------
What you have to understand here, is that the Pixies have been credited w/influencing many a 90's act, a decade astro finds questionable (I say this in the most charitable of manners, of course :)
--------------------------------------------------

Thats the most ridiculous rationale for keeping a band out of the RRHOF Ive heard. First off, the music of those they influenced has nothing to do with their own music which was great. Secondly, their style spawned a sound that would change the face of popular music. Because the SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL TASTES of the pompous jerks at Rolling Stone magazine just so happened to dislike that particular music further illustrates just how much of a joke the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is. Grand Master Flash is in the RRHOF and his music spawned some of the worst garbage ever played on radio and marked the beginning of the end for actual musicians playing instruments in a studio. It would be nice if the morons who vote for who gets into the RRHOF were actually fans of Rock and Roll.

Posted by Mackdown on Friday, 03.23.12 @ 23:52pm


@GFW: And speaking of "influencing many a 90's act", who did the Beastie Boys influence anyway? Vanilla Ice? Limp Bizkit"? wow what a generation of great music LOL

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 00:26am


Man, the whole anti-Rap/Hip-hop thing is so very "Get off my lawn!" at this point.

I'm on the older end of the regular posters here (staring down 40) and Rap/Hip-hop is not really my thing either, but we're in the 21st Century. It's not going anywhere, and the important acts of the genre are going to keep getting inducted while mid-tier Rock acts keep waiting. Grandmaster Flash and the Beastie Boys were both important, groundbreaking acts and deserve their inductions whether they're someone that I would sit around and listen to or not.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 00:32am


@DarinRG: This isn't "get off my lawn" at all. The point is the Beastie Boys and Grand Master Flash are not rock acts and did not write or perform rock music. Why should they be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Are the Beach Boys in the Soul or R&B Hall of Fame? Just because a group is ground breaking in one genre does not mean they should be inducted into the Hall of Fame for another genre. Especially when there are actual rock acts who were even more groundbreaking who are not in at all. The fact the rap trio Beastie Boys who did not even play rock music are in the RRHOF while the Moody Blues who were one of the most influential and groudbreaking rock acts ever are not shows just how much of a joke the RRHOF is. So hip hop artist Grandmaster Flash gets in but Glen Campbell who was the guitarist for Elvis, the Beach Boys, the Byrds, the Mamas and the Papas and the Monkees doesn't?? Thats idiotic.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 00:55am


Well, I'm definitely not going to argue with you about the Moody Blues being a legitimate snub. They are. And Glen Campbell is certainly a legitimate candidate for the Sideman category. I guess where we differ is on the definition of "rock". I very much consider Hip-hop to be a form of rock. When I refer to "Hip-hop" I use that phrase in the same way that I use Punk, Reggae, Psychedelic, etc. Just a narrowing down of the type of rock, not setting it aside as something different.

I'm curious what, to you, sets Hip-hop aside as something different than Rock. Is it the vocal style? The way the music is made (sampling, etc.)? And I ask in good faith. I'm not trying to bait you. (And I'll openly admit that I'm not a fetishist for "musicianship". My favorite artists run the range from classical orchestration to standard guitar-bass-drums to one guy and a computer. All I care about is how it makes me feel when it hits my ears.)

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 01:38am


Actually I just thought mentioning the Pixies with the Monkees would be fun, a humorous dichotomy. And I was right again.

Mackdown-I appreciate that you are a diehard fan of the Monkees. But I stated my point of view and I think my points were reasonable. With respect, you were the one who has engaged in false claims. Sorry, but I don't think appearing once on the Ed Sullivan show is the equivalent of having an entire network show created specifically to showcase and promote a band put together for that reason with teams of songwriters, promoters, etc. And to quote your wise opinion: "They probably won't get inducted into the Rock Hall of Fame but who cares?" You sure seem to care, but there is a kernal of truth there. Whether they get inducted or not they are still a band beloved by many. So buck up.

As to the Pixies, since people bit on the joke, I will say that I feel the same way about them as I feel about Sonic Youth. But I have to admit that SY has a much stronger claim than the Pixies. And what about earlier bands like Gun Club or Husker Du or the Meat Puppets or the Replacements? Heck, what bout the Violent Femmes? By the mid 80s there was a pretty standard alt-rock blueprint that bands followed with mind-numbing predictability. It was really pseudo-alternative (there is nothing alternative about doing what everyone else does) and it was often boring. Let the music press slobber over them all they want.

But all that said, my eyes glaze over whenever I start reading about the "influence" shell-game. So and so was a big influence on Nirvana, blah, blah, blah. If they don't really seem stylistically similar, so what? Kurt Cobain mentioned them in an interview, and that's all we need to know.

To be blunt, being a supposed influence on Nirvana is not that big a deal to me. Not to be too offensive, but Nirvana was as overrated as it gets. Blasphemy, I know. But let's be honest. Would we think of Nirvana the same way if Cobain hadn't killed himself? Is there a more cliche-ridden path to musical immortality than a young musician OD-ing or committing suicide? Sick to say, but dying young and staying pretty is always a good musical career move after you've achieved a certain level of fame. Does anyone think that Eddie Vedder sits up at night almost wishing that he had OD-ed in 93 so that he would now be St. Vedder?

Those pleasantries aside, when I say overrated, that doesn't mean I object to Nirvana being inducted when they become eligible. Because unlike bands like Sonic Youth or the Pixies, Nirvana had something I'm rather keen on: real world impact. For better or worse, they had a tangible impact on popular music in their time, things that alt-land heros like the Pixies cannot claim. I have said this before, but unless influence is very concrete (eg, the Sex Pistols), you will need more. In addition to artistic excellence (subjectivity here we come), did the band have a significant historical impact (eg, Elvis, maybe the NY Dolls creating the NYC underground rock scene)? Did the band effect stylistic changes in popular music? Did the band impact rock/popular music at all? Was it a huge commercial success? When you start getting to the alt-rock bands of the mid 80s you typically find minimal commercial success, limited historical importance (the alt-rock scene was already in motion from the 70s), and diluted influence. And you also tend to find marginal originality. Reallistically the main thing bands like Sonic Youth (after their hyper-derivative noise art stage) and the Pixies have is that music journalists love them, as if that could not be foreseen. But it worked wonders for Laura Nyro, so who knows? But I find the whole thing a bit of a charade.


Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 01:56am


@DarinRG: Hip hop is not rock by any measure and its a reach to say it is. It has also never been classified with rock and its artists have never identified themselves as rock artists. Lumping hip hop into the same category as rock is highly subjective, highly debatable and I can promise you the vast majority of rock fans would strongly disagree with that assertion. Hip hop is an extension R&B and soul but has taken on a life of its own with its own style and beat that is most definitely not rock. You can make the argument rock had some of its roots in R&B and Soul, but rock also has MAJOR country roots. Should country artists be allowed in? If you're going to claim hip hop artists belong in the RRHOF there is no possible way you can say that country artists don't belong in also. Before the RRHOF starts worrying about getting rap and hip hop artists in maybe it should make sure actual rock artists like the Moody Blues, Rush and ELO who had FAR more of an impact on the genre are given their due. I mean seriously how absurd is it that RUSH not in the RRHOF but Grand Master Flash is?? r u even kidding me??

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 01:57am


Hip-hop developed under direct influence of Rock and Roll ingredients in the Rock and Roll era, making it a sub-genre of Rock. Country was just one ingredient, and I am supportive of country acts who had a direct impact on Rock being inducted. I'm more than supportive of Johnny Cash. I'd be totally fine with Willie Nelson or Waylon Jennings. I'm a huge advocate of Gram Parsons and the Flying Burrito Brothers. I'd even be willing to entertain arguments for Emmylou Harris or Glen Campbell. Just the same I'm supportive of any Jazz or Blues artist who had a direct impact on the Rock world.

I always find it strange that so many of the people who reject Hip-hop as a form of Rock are supportive of Prog bands that, to me, are much further away from the traditional sound of Rock and Roll than Hip-hop is.

As far as Rush goes, yes they are a big snub, I'd put them in the lower half of the top-10 major omissions, but whatever the inexplicable hold-up from the nominating committee is it doesn't take away the worthiness of other acts who are inducted each year.

And as far as ELO goes, I'll just tell you now that we'll never agree on that one. They're actually a constant source of debate and controversy on this site, but I find their music sterile and effete and far less important than Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC or the Beastie Boys (or Public Enemy, Eric B. & Rakim or N.W.A., the next likely Hip-hop acts to be inducted) in the historical scheme of things. If ELO had never existed, I don't think that music would sound any different in 2012. I can't say the same about any of the Hip-hop bands that I just mentioned.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 03:04am


Clarification on my first paragraph: Country is just one ingredient of Rock and Roll. Not claiming that it was an ingredient of Hip-hop. Poorly phrased.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 03:06am


@astrodog: Wow going by your strict standards almost nobody deserves to be in the rock hall of fame and at least half of the current inductees should be kicked out. Real world impact? LOL. Are you kidding me? Please tell me what the real world impact of the Shirelles was. What was the real world impact of the Beastie Boys besides giving birth to the Vanilla Ices and Limp Bizkits of the world?
Ive read your reasons for the Monkees not being inducted. They'd be perfectly reasonable if you were only CONSISTENT with them. So I'm confused now. You're against singers using television as a vehicle for record sales unless its the right kind of television? I have pretty much debunked every one of your reasons for the Monkees without so much as a direct response but I still don't know why won't you answer my question. Does Whitney Houston deserve to be in the RRHOF? She probably will be someday. Do you think thats fair considering she used studio musicians, other writers together with both television and film to get famous? I take it the fact you won't respond to that means you are aware of your own hypocrisy on the issue. There was a massive team of producers and songwriters behind the success of every major artist there Einstein. The Billie Jean video was the catalyst for Thriller and the Beat It and Thriller videos catapulted the album to millions of record sales. I fail to see the difference.
Your diatribe about the Pixies is again nothing more than your own personal dislike of alternative music. The Pixies impact on that music genre is well documented and it was millions of fans and aspiring artists that were drooling over the Pixies, not just critics. Interestingly enough, it is those same critics who drool over acts like the Beastie Boys (I suspect largely due to their political leanings) who have actually changed the rules to allow groups like that in who don't even play rock. I notice you have been very careful not to defend any of the more questionable inductees focusing solely on criticizing bands who have been passed over. I take it even you can see the absurdity of arguing the induction of non-rock acts over established rock acts. Nirvana is overrated? Again, completely subjective. That is your own personal musical tastes that are not representative of the vast majority of Rock and Roll fans around the world. The Pixies impact on the world of alternative music is well established and cited by not just Nirvana and journalists but by rock icons such as U2 who called the Pixies "one of America's greatest bands ever", and David Bowie said the Pixies made "just about the most compelling music of the entire 80s." But what do those guys know right? LOL.
You seem to have this strict set of rules you demand for groups like the Monkees and the Pixies that are surprisingly relaxed when talking about other artists. What you fail to realize is the day the RRHOF decided to start allowing in non-rock acts (mostly to appeal to a wider television audience during their annual induction ceremony), is the day your standards went right out the window. The Monkees revolutionized music video, sold 65 million records and had some of the most memorable hits of the 1960's that people still listen to this day. Apparently that's not "real world impact" enough for you but inspiring a generation of goofy rap metal bands nobody even listens to anymore is. Hilarious.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 03:53am


Hip-hop developed under direct influence of Rock and Roll ingredients in the Rock and Roll era, making it a sub-genre of Rock.
--------------------------------------------------
@DarinRG : Thats pure hogwash. All kinds of popular music borrow elements from each other. By that very definition Rock music is a sub-genre of Jazz and we should start allowing rock acts into the Jazz hall of fame. Your reasoning is a MAJOR reach and I'm not buying it. Progressive bands are less rock than hip hop groups are? Thats absurd. So I guess the Cure and R.E.M. are less rock and roll than NWA was right? Come on man. If the rules of what is rock and what isn't are this loosely defined than the RRHOF isn't really about rock and roll anymore. And that's not even getting into the fact there are no instruments or singing involved in much of rap and hip hop which automatically disqualifies it from being considered rock music. The artists you mentioned impacted hip hop music, not rock music. Myself and most rock fans would disagree with your claim that hip hop and rock are one in the same so that's a mute point. Nevermind the fact there is already an institution to recognize rap and hip hop artists called the Popular Music Hall of Fame which I believe is located in Seattle. If the RRHOF is going to become this watered down it should change its name to something else.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 04:14am


@DarinRG: So if ELO doesn't meet your strict criteria for getting into the RRHOF, how do you explain the Shirelles, Ritchie Valens, Dusty Springfield or even Aerosmith who were one of many heavy rock bands that surfaced in the late 1970's?
The truth is, entry into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is completely arbitrary and reflective of nothing more then the subjective musical tastes of a few. People seem to take it less seriously every year. The fact Rush is not in while drunken frat party favorite The Beastie Boys (who's impact on popular music is highly overrated) are in says it all.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 04:35am


"Your reasoning is a MAJOR reach and I'm not buying it."

If you don't buy it that's fine, but the RRHoF seems to agree with me. In 2012 the lines between white guitar rawk, Hip-hop, electronica and other forms that have evolved in the Rock and Roll era are blurred enough that it doesn't really matter what old school purists think. The world is moving on and the HoF reflects that.

"So I guess the Cure and R.E.M. are less rock and roll than NWA was right?"

Not sure where this reach came from, but I consider all three insanely important. (And I consider the Cure a top-5 snub.)

"If the rules of what is rock and what isn't are this loosely defined than the RRHOF isn't really about rock and roll anymore."

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but many people, myself included, don't see any controversy with their definition of Rock and Roll. You can peruse our own Rock Hall Revisited/Projected project and see that you're in a minority on this site.

"The artists you mentioned impacted hip hop music, not rock music."

I'm saving you a seat here in the 21st Century. You'll be surprised how it looks.

"Myself and most rock fans would disagree with your claim that hip hop and rock are one in the same so that's a mute point."

I'll save a few extra seats.

"If the RRHOF is going to become this watered down it should change its name to something else."

It already has a name that suits it just fine. A whopping three Hip-hop acts that were heavily influential on the overall "Rock" scene is hardly a watering down.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 04:41am


"@DarinRG: So if ELO doesn't meet your strict criteria for getting into the RRHOF, how do you explain the Shirelles, Ritchie Valens, Dusty Springfield or even Aerosmith who were one of many heavy rock bands that surfaced in the late 1970's?"

I'm not sure how you got from ELO to any of these acts any more than I understand how you got from ELO to the Cure or REM. Very random.

As for the Beastie Boys, it seems that you're not familiar with their work beyond the mid-80s. as far as influencing the likes of Limp Bizkit, I think you really need to be looking more in the direction of Faith No more or Rage Against the Machine if you want someone to blame for that.

The Beastie Boys' value and influence is more in the realm of sampling and soundscapes and taking that artform to a level that hadn't been done yet. Not to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure that you'll find that trivial, but most 21st century artists would find them incredibly groundbreaking. And, get this, they did it all while playing "real instruments" as well.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 04:50am


@DarinRG: The Rock and Roll Hall of fame and the collection of pompous jerks who write for Rolling Stone are hardly reflective of the vast majority of rock fans. Your condescending attitude aside, you still haven't answered how if rap acts should be considered rock based on a few elements I'm not even sure exist, how can you say that rock acts don't belong in the jazz hall of fame? By your own criteria rock is a sub-genre of jazz right? It has nothing to do with the world moving on, it has to do with recognizing rock history. Thats what this is all about right? You claiming we should reinvent history according to some abstract modern standard is ridiculous. Rock and Roll is Rock and Roll. Rap and Hip Hop are something different. Sorry if us cavemen who are the vast majority who buy these different genres of music disagree with you on this subject. I am a fan of each genre of music but I also recognize that they are not anywhere even close to the same thing and the only ones who are claiming so are some elitist pricks in the media and apologists for the RRHOF like yourself.
You also claimed alternative/progressive acts have less rock and roll elements than rap and hip hop do, did you not? R.E.M. and the Cure are progressive/alternative so I think its safe to assume you consider NWA more rock then they are. Is this correct? If so I'll be the first to say thats a complete load of horse shit.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 05:17am


@DarinRG: If you don't see how I got from ELO to those artists then you're not paying attention to even what you're saying. You claimed ELO should not be allowed in because they had no real impact on music thereafter whereas Public Enemy, etc. did. Well, what was the lasting impact of The Shirelles, Ritchie Valens or Dusty Springfield? They're all in the RRHOF despite the fact none of them had anymore impact on popular music than ELO did. These guidelines for getting inducted seem to be selectively applied to only certain artists.
The fact the Beastie Boys value and influence is limited to sampling and soundscapes (mostly for music that's not even rock) even further proves my point they don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. The impact of the Moody Blues alone is so vastly superior its laughable. Nevermind the fact the Beastie Boys aren't even a rock group!
Who are you kidding seriously? The RRHOF has decided to allow in rap and hip hop artists so they can appeal to a wider television audience for their annual induction show. NOT because there is some imaginary link between the two genres that us dumb music buyers in the real world haven't been enlightened to just yet. Their reasons for bending the rules and playing so loose and fast with the definition of what is rock is purely an economical one. Obviously you have not caught on to that just yet.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 05:34am


"Your condescending attitude aside, you still haven't answered how if rap acts should be considered rock based on a few elements I'm not even sure exist" - Mackdown

Mackdown, no offence, but DarinRG is probably one of the least condescending commentators on here.

"@DarinRG: So if ELO doesn't meet your strict criteria for getting into the RRHOF, how do you explain the Shirelles, Ritchie Valens, Dusty Springfield or even Aerosmith"

I know this was directed at Darin and not me, but comparing Aerosmith's overall world impact to ELO's is a bit of a stretch. Also, Dusty Springfield has a legitimate case as the greatest female blue-eyed soul singer of all time. The Shirelles and Ritchie Valens on the other hand, I can see your point (while we're at it, why didn't you mention Bonnie Raitt, Patti Smith or Percy Sledge?).

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 05:48am


I've pretty much already made my point. Jazz is Jazz. Country is Country. Blues is Blues. Rock is Rock. But each of those genres has sub-genres and artists who cross genres. Hip-hop is a subgenre of Rock. The RRHoF agrees with me on that. And if you want to put Traffic or Mahavishnu Orchestra in a Jazz HoF I'd have no problem with that.

Prog and Post-punk (which is what the Cure and REM fall under) are very different subgenres. Post-punk and Hip-hop, in my opinion, are much closer to the traditional roots of Rock and Roll than most Prog. That's not to say by any stretch that I feel that Prog bands should not be inducted - I've agreed with all of them that you've mentioned with the exception of ELO. The point that started this overdrawn tangent is that I find it funny that most people who are anti-Hip-hop as not being "Rock and Roll" are pro-Prog, which I feel is further away from traditional "Rock and Roll" than Hip-hop is.

I know neither of us will change the others mind, but hopefully this knocks down our strawmen.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:27am


The problem with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and its induction process is that all the criteria it uses is all way too subjective. Deciding who had the greatest impact or who was influential is all highly subjective and debatable. You can pretty much always trace back one artist's style to a previous artist's, so arguing about who had the most impact or who was the first to do what is pointless.
The criteria should not be what ROCK artists had a lasting impact, but what rock artists had a memorable impact. Duran Duran will probably never get in because their music was not critically acclaimed (and they appear to be the perfect candidate the jerks at Rolling Stone love to snub their noses at), but can anyone deny they were a MAJOR part of the music world in the 1980's? No matter what some people thought of them, they were one of the most successful acts of the 1980's and a significant moment in rock history. How can that not even be acknowledged?
Did a band or artist sell a respectable amount of records? Did they develop a respectable following and fan base? Were they a significant moment in rock history? If the answer to these questions is yes I don't see what purpose the RRHOF is serving other then to further demonstrate that its nothing more than a select club of pompous jerks who think they know more about music than us fans do.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:29am


wooooah, a lot has happened while i've been gone.

well, lets deal with these one at a time

"beastie boys don't deserve in because their not rock"

ironically, their more rock than quite a few inducted artists *cough*The Supremes*cough* so keeping them out on the assumption their not rock enough is pretty silly. Also who cares if their biggest hit was "Fight For Your Right"? Chuck Bera hold that against him?

"alt rock bands of the 80's aren't deserving of induction"

but girl groups totally do

"Rap shouldn't be in the hall of fame"

Why dismiss rap if you're accepting soul and Reggae? The whole Rock and ROll part of the name is mislabelling, it's pretty much a popular music hall of fame and ahs been since the first few years.

"Rush is more deserving than Grandmaster Flash"

Now this I won't disagree with. Rush are way more important than Flash. What on earth did he have aside from The Message?

"ELO is deserving"

I won't argue with this either, they sold a hell of alot and were pretty influential.

(also how the hel ldid someone mistake R.E.M and The Cure for prog? those two have nothing in common with the likes of ELP and Yes)

anyway, it's alright, because there's one snub that's more important than nay already mentioned.

Kraftwerk.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:34am


@DarinRG: I disagree that rap is a sub-genre of rock and you have not demonstrated in any way how it is. YOU feel Prog is further away from rock than rap is, not the rest of us I can assure you. Progressive rock uses guitars, most rap doesn't. Progressive rock uses singers, most rap doesn't. Progressive rock is based on blues chords just like rock. Rap isn't. Not sure where you're seeing all these similarities rap has to rock but they're a mystery to the vast majority of us.
I am not impressed in the least the RRHOF agrees with you as it is quite clear their motivation is maximizing profits, not any true tribute to rock music.
Why don't you go ask those in the Jazz community how they feel about allowing rock artists into the Jazz Hall of Fame. Tell them how out of touch they are because they can't see how rock is a sub-genre of Jazz and that not only some but all rock artists should be recognized side by side with them in the Hall of Fame. Go pose that question onstage at the annual Jazz Festival in New Orleans and see if you leave the place in one piece.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:39am


Mackdown - Agreed with you on Duran Duran. (Actually, even though we've been bickering about the Rap/Hip-hop question we have more in common than not based on your previous posts.)

"anyway, it's alright, because there's one snub that's more important than nay already mentioned.

Kraftwerk." -GFW

Amen. Snub #1.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:40am


@Tahvo Parvianen: What was the great worldwide lasting impact Aerosmith had on rock music? They were quite successful and I'm a huge fan, but they were hardly the only band doing that kind of music at that time. What makes them so different from ELO?
Dusty Springfield being one of the greatest "blue eyed" blues singers of all time is subjective.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:43am


Hey don't get me wrong I'm not necessarily opposed to allowing rap or hip hop acts in, but if they're going to bend the rules in that area I don't know why they are so strict in others. I'm all for it being more inclusive but yes, bands like Kraftwerk, Rush, The Moody Blues, and yes THE MONKEES and Duran Duran were too significant to leave out. The fact that they are makes me call the integrity of the whole thing into question.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:48am


Funny that as I was scrolling up I ran into a post from Brittany referencing Green Day. Perfect punctuation point for the night.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:49am


"Kraftwerk, Rush, The Moody Blues, and yes THE MONKEES and Duran Duran"

Throw in Public Enemy and you've got a pretty good class for next year. ;)

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:51am


Well Aerosmith (but probably more Van Halen) is certainly at least partially to "blame" (I use this word because I know how many here feel about hair metal, though I personally have nothing against hair metal) for the hair metal scene of the 80's. The fact more bands have ripped them off than ELO at least says something. Not much of an erudite argument I'll admit, but I've made it nonetheless. I mean, name one band that strikes you as an ELO ripoff.

"Dusty Springfield being one of the greatest "blue eyed" blues singers of all time is subjective."

While this is true I'd like to see you come up with a more important female blue eyed soul singer / female singer of the British Invasion / contributor to soul's exposure in the UK and Europe than Dusty Springfield. Furthermore, Dusty in Memphis is one of the top soul albums of all time (and definitely the top blue eyed soul albums, or can you name an album more prolific?). If you're still unconvinced, "I Only Want to Be with You" "You Don't Have to Say You Love Me" and "Son of a Preacher Man" are all top notch songs and more well-known and numerous than other acts that have made into the Hall of Fame have had in their careers (for comparison namely Martha and the Vandellas, the Shirelles and the Ronettes, not to knock on these artists, just comparing)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:56am


Edit: I meant a more prolific "soul" album or more specifically a more prolific soul album by a female musician/blue eyed soul album.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:00am


@Darin: what of Nirvana? much rather have them in than Public Enemy.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:03am


I thought it was PE this coming year and Nirvana the following. Both first ballot no-brainers either way.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:06am


@Tahvo Parvianen: I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to be in, but your reasoning is her unique and distinctive style. The exact same can be said for ELO who had a sound and style all their own that was easily recognizable.
And as far as hair metal is concerned, it was one of the most successful periods of rock music and anyone that dismisses it is not a rock and roll fan. Ozzy's first two solo albums were awesome. The Scorpions are huge on three continents. Black Sabbath, AC/DC and Motley Crew had huge followings that were celebrations of rock and roll music. Any institution that does not recognize that is not worthy of saying it has anything to do with rock and roll.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:07am


Yeah, just checked. PE, NWA and the Pixies are the top acts this coming year. Nirvana comes the year after.

I predict that PE goes first ballot, NWA goes a year or two after and while I'm supportive of the Pixies there are plenty of punk, post-punk and new wave bands who are ahead of them in line.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:10am


Speaking of jazz and rock...
I'm listening to the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds now and hearing more jazz in that than I ever realized.
"Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder)" is absolutely stunning. One of the most amazing pop songs ever recorded.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:13am


I haven't listened to Pet Sounds in a few years, but their Grammy performance has firmly lodged it on the to do list in my head. Hell of a piece of sonic art.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:15am


"I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to be in, but your reasoning is her unique and distinctive style. The exact same can be said for ELO who had a sound and style all their own that was easily recognizable. "

Well I'm not going to argue with that, I would actually like to see ELO get in, really fun band.

"as far as hair metal is concerned, it was one of the most successful periods of rock music and anyone that dismisses it is not a rock and roll fan."

The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, I know plenty of people that don't like hair metal yet are serious rock fans. Personally, however, I've certainly never dismissed hair metal. There are plenty of hair metal bands I like.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:15am


@DarinRG: So NWA and Public Enemy could both be in the RRHOF while the Moody Blues and Rush are not even being considered?? And I'm supposed to take this institution seriously? The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke and everyone knows it.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:17am


@DarinRG: I listened to Pet Sounds again for the first time in awhile recently and it nearly brought me to tears. That is an amazing record from start to finish. Brian Wilson at the absolute pinnacle of his talent. The musicians on the album are the famous Wrecking Crew with the great Glen Campbell (another shameful snub by the RRHOF)on guitar. "Don't Talk" and "You Still Believe In Me" are masterpieces.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:23am


Mackdown - Agreeing to disagree and not wanting to get into it again, all four of them belong, but whatever the hold-up is with Moody Blues and Rush (or Kraftwerk or the Cure or the New York Dolls, or Gram Parsons or Big Star, etc.), I'm not going to take it out on other deserving acts who do get in.

I don't consider the HoF a joke, but the nominating committee does need a major shake-up.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:25am


Mackdown - You've mentioned Glen Campbell a couple times tonight, but always in a context that's more Sideman than Performer. Is that the direction that you're thinking of for him?

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:29am


@DarinRG: Yes I think Glen Campbell should get in as a sideman like Leon Russell did. They were also both members of the Wrecking Crew. But even Glen Campbell's country songs always had a rock feel to them. Check out the guitar solo he does on "Galveston" sometime on YouTube. I swear he's better than Clapton. With the know-how for making a rock record, his guitar skills and what he brought to the studio for countless rock and roll records that man should most definitely be in the RRHOF.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:40am


Glen Campbell is a guitar genius, no doubt. Way overdue for an induction.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:46am


He was another one that the Grammys reminded me how great he was. I was glad he got that performance to remind people of that. His DUI arrest in Scottsdale, AZ a few years back was just a few miles from where I live and that seemed to be his lasting legacy for awhile.

Like I mentioned earlier, he's a country singer that I would take seriously as a crossover candidate for the RRHoF. I'll check out his YouTube stuff. He's someone that I haven't listened to much since childhood. My grandfather was a big country fan and gave me three albums when I was five, Johnny Cash, Buck Owens and Glen Campbell. First three albums that I ever owned.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:49am


Glen Campbell is one of the godfathers of Rock and Roll. Many many kids listening to rock music for the very first time in the 1950's were listening to music coming out of Glen Campbell's guitar whether they knew it or not. The guy was Elvis' guitar player and played nearly every guitar part on almost all the Beach Boys early music including Pet Sounds. He was actually a full-time member of the group at one point before his own rising solo career took him away in 1967. One of the greatest guitar players ever.

Posted by Mackdown on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 07:55am


@Mackdown: how on earth did you equte ozzy, sababth and AC/DC to hair metal? they were jus plain metal.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 08:34am


The Rap argument again?

I'll just state my opinion that I've stated millions of times: If their music is "rock" in spirit it belongs. Same thing with pop music.

That's why Jay-Z, Run DMC, Public Enemy, 2Pac and NWA are getting in. It's what separates a legend who trascended his genre like Eminem from a shallow joke like Lil Wayne.

Posted by Jim on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 17:40pm


"Kraftwerk, Rush, The Moody Blues, and yes THE MONKEES and Duran Duran"

Throw in Public Enemy and you've got a pretty good class for next year. ;)

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 06:51am

I'll toss in either Glenn Miller, Count Basie, or Benny Goodman in as an Early Influence to round out an already stellar class.

Posted by Zach on Saturday, 03.24.12 @ 23:34pm


@Jim: Because you think rap music is rock in spirit it belongs in the same category? Okay well how about country? Garth Brooks, Hank Williams and Roy Clark were all rock in spirit as well. Should they be in the RRHOF too? If the definition of what is rock is going to be this loosely defined then they shouldn't call it the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame anymore.
Music such as Eminem's has no staying power. Its like fast food/disposable songs. They sound good for a time and then they become just boring. Its not the same experience as listening to a song you haven't heard in awhile. Sorry, while I am a fan of some rap I don't really respect it musically. And its dreadful live.

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 02:56am


Wanna know why rap isn't rock and roll? Because rap sucks live. It sounds like nothing but shouting with some incoherent recorded beat. Rock music was created for and always intended for LIVE PERFORMANCES. Rap music is meant for the studio and the studio only. Computer generated beats with samples from people before who actually had the talent to write songs is not rock in spirit by my book or any rock fans I know.

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 03:04am


Wow.I step away from the computer for a day and all hell breaks loose.

Mackdown-I'm glad you feel that you have debunked every point I've made. If we can't convince ourselves at least, who could we convince? But I obviously disagree. I simply don't think that the Monkees being exclusively showcased and marketed on their own network show unlike every one of their peers is equivalent to having a video in rotation with hundreds of other bands on MTV. While I'm sorry for your confusion, to equate them because they both involve television in some manner is a complete non sequitur.

As I've stated and restated, the Monkee's fame and commercial success was manufactured to an extraordinary degree, so much so that I think it has to be qualified. The Monkees TV show, especially in the media landscape of 1966, meant that fame and success were guaranteed. (Again, even The Partridge Family had four top ten albums, including a US No. 1, and a number of hits, including the No. 1 "I Think I Love You", using the same formula). Virtually the minute that show ended so did they. And I think this is compounded by the fact that they can make no claim to have written some of their hits. You are again free to think this doesn't matter, but I think it does. If we are considering recognizing the Monkees as one of the greatest acts of all time, at what point can we overlook the uniquely manufactured circumstances of their success as well as the fact that they had only a minimal hand in achieving it?

You repeatedly insist that I compare them to other artists even though I never advocated for any of the ones you mention. You mentioned Britany Spears. Short answer: I don't think she deserves to be inducted either.

You mention the Shirelles. Whatever my feelings about them, they go back to 1957, are among the orginal "girl" R&B group, even predating the Supremes and the Crystals, and they had a number of hits. I can see there induction based on historical factors that do not apply to the Monkees.

But the comparison you think is most effective is Whitney Houston. If you go to her page my stated opinion was not that she should be inducted but that while certain factors definitely weigh against her, such as virtually no songwriting, her extraordinary commercial success may allow her to overcome these objections. And making a direct comparison, Houston sold an estimated three/four times as many albums as the Monkees, had 11 US number one songs, and had a much longer career, putting out a platinum album as late as 2009. Her commercial success and longevity dwarfs the Monkees. I'm not sure if I'd vote for her, but I'd vote for her before the Monkees.

Ultimately, you accuse me of inconsistency (or rather INCONSISTENCY), but there are simply no blanket statements. Instead you have to look at the circumstances of each individual act. For example, Whitney Houston may seem like a favorable analogy (despite my never having argued thst she should be inducted), having not composed her own hits and using session musicians, but in fact her commercial success and longevity towers over the Monkees. On anaylsis then, even equating music videos and an exclusive network TV showcase for the sake of argument, the analogy is not so favorable.

Likewise Elvis was famously not a songwriter, but his historical/cultural impact is so undeniable that this is a moot point. (Feel free to argue that the Monkees are as important as Elvis).

Looking then at the specific circumstances, the Monkees were a group manufactured for a TV show, their fame/success was the result of this show, they did not write a single one of their hits, they had no longevity, flaming out almost as soon as the show ended, and they do not qualify on an historical footing. (Run with the music video idea as far as you can and hope no one notices A Hard Day's Night). Disagree to your hearts content, but it seems pretty reasonable to me. But at least flail about in a coherent way.

You also make some curious assertions. You state that "There was a massive team of producers and songwriters behind the success of every major artist there Einstein." Really? This is overstatement of course made in the heat of argument. Oh, and I'm not Einstein.:) Sticks and stones.

In furtherance of your MTV idea, you claim that videos such as the Billie Jean video "catapulted the album to millions of record sales." This is again overstatement. Jackson had already had No. 1 hits before Thriller (eg, Ben). His prior album, 1979's Off the Wall, went multi-platinum and produced two US. No. 1 hits all before MTV. The first single off Thriller, the videoless The Girl Is Mine, reached No. 2 and was certified platinum. The videos of course helped promote the album, as was par for the course for the majority of albums by that time.

You also state that "You seem to have this strict set of rules you demand for groups like the Monkees and the Pixies that are surprisingly relaxed when talking about other artists." What other artists? And I don't have rules. I just try to look at the circumstances and apply certain principles.

And I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention "goofy rap metal bands."

Finally, as to the Pixies, who I mentioned because you did, they were clearly not an orginator of the US alternative rock scene in the 80s (all the bands I mentioned among others preceeded them), they were not imo innovative or original (it was standard, boilerplate alt rock), and the usual claims of "influence" are nebulous. I am admittedly suspicious of critics' darlings and the assumptions that always follow them. I see no basis to believe the overblown claim that but for the Pixies the 90s alt scene would not have occurred which is applied to all alt land heros. And most fundamentally, I would place a number of bands from the same genre ahead of them. I'm glad Bowie liked them but, frankly, so what? He liked a lot of bands. (Should we induct Fanny because he liked them too?). Endorsements are nice. I'll stick to something more tangible.

If you care to respond make sure you fill it with all the insults, LOLs and capitalized words you care to include.




Posted by astrodog on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 03:24am


"Because you think rap music is rock in spirit it belongs in the same category?"

Hey old fogey, did you even read my post?

"If their music is "rock" in spirit it belongs."

If you decide to take that bait and read a sentence further, you can see where I differentiated between a rap artist who paved the way and displayed a rock attitude towards his music (Eminem, Jay-Z, NWA) and a Top-40 made, overhyped wannabe "gangsta" who likes to flaunt his money, cash and hoes (Lil Wayne, Soulja Boy).

"Okay well how about country? Garth Brooks, Hank Williams and Roy Clark were all rock in spirit as well."

Don't bite the hand who feeds, I've been a big (in fact, one of like 3 people, 2 of which rarely post here anymore) defender of Garth Brooks as a candidate for the rock hall. And Hank Williams IS in the hall.

"Music such as Eminem's has no staying power."

"Lose Yourself". You lose.

"They sound good for a time and then they become just boring."

Yeah dude, I'm sick of Free Bird too. Cause god knows that rule stretches beyond Rap music.

"Sorry, while I am a fan of some rap I don't really respect it musically. And its dreadful live."

Funny, the same thing was said about Rock and Roll some 55 years ago...

"Rock music was created for and always intended for LIVE PERFORMANCES."

I didn't know Steely Dan was this electric live act, I guess there's no such thing as rock groups being just as layered production-wise as rap groups....

"Computer generated beats with samples from people before who actually had the talent to write songs is not rock in spirit by my book or any rock fans I know."

"99 Problems" rocks harder than anything that those wussies in REO Speedwagon or Styx could've ever come up with. Which is why Jay-Z is a legend and Styx are a punchline.

All this is coming from someone who prefers rock to rap btw.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 03:26am


@astrodog: Wow you really poured your heart out. I must have touched a nerve. Unfortunately you simply repeated the same drivel as before offering nothing more than your subjective opinion. You continue to overlook the fact that ALL fame is manufactured and the Monkees road to success was little different from most anyone else's at that time or since. Tell me, if it was so easy to just cast 4 guys in a show, bring in some producers and songwriters and sell 65 million records than why hasn't it been done again? If it was so easy you'd think they would have just continued doing it over and over again right? You obviously don't know the history of MTV very well either. There weren't hundreds of other bands in the rotation at the same time. MTV together with record companies chose who they thought would be the most marketable and the most t.v. friendly (sound familiar?) and put those videos into heavy rotation. Those videos also aired 24 hours a day, not a 30 minute timeslot once a week. You claiming 30 minutes once a week is a greater advantage than MTV's 24 hour exposure 7 days a week on a network every high school student in America was glued to day and night is nothing more than your opinion, and it is wrong.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not and has never been about recognizing the greatest acts of all time and that is evidenced by the fact the Shirelles and Ritchie Valens are in. You claim the Monkees' success was entirely due to their television series, but they were also wildly popular in the UK and Europe. How do you explain (or in your case make an excuse for) that?
The Partridge Family was another attempt at what the Monkees did that was a fraction of the same success. If anything that strengthens their case. And as I have already demonstrated multiple times, the fact they didnít write SOME of their hits is completely irrelevant in this discussion. You continue to hold the Monkees to a standard you hold nobody else to. All fame is manufactured and you're living in denial if you think otherwise. As soon as Elvisí bad movies finished his career took a nosedive as well but congratulations, you just made a case against Elvis being inducted into the RRHOF if you read word for word what you just wrote. Nobody said they had the same cultural impact as Elvis, but they did have a cultural impact in the form of music video which cannot be denied.
The Shirelles were another one of many girl groups at that time. If you use the standards which you and others have described they should not be inducted. Using the criteria you just described, The Monkees were one of the original boy bands in the early stages of rock and roll. They were one of the most successful acts of the 1960ís, were the first to use music video as a major vehicle for success and increased the visibility and success of the genre. Those are the facts dude. They had a significant moment in rock history and should be recognized for it. I donít understand why that is so unacceptable to you for any other reason then you have a personal dislike for them.
Okay Iím really confused now. According to you its okay if some artists use t.v. to advance their careers except in the case of the Monkees. Now commercial success is okay to apply to Whitney Houston but this same reasoning cannot be used with the Monkees? Huh? Again, I would respect your opinion a little more if you were at least consistent. If you are going to qualify the Monkees record sales due to their t.v. show than you absolutely must qualify Whitney Houstonís record sales with the double dose of a hit movie and heavy video rotation promoting a song she did not write or have any part in the production of. Her longevity is drastically overstated as well. She was popular from 1985 to around 1992. She basically disappeared from sight for most of the next 2 decades. Again, you apply a standard to the Monkees you wonít apply to anyone else. You claim being on t.v. 30 minutes once a week is a better advantage than having a heavily promoted feature film together with a video in heavy rotation promoting a song that had already been made famous by someone else, is about as out there as you can get. The fact all fame is manufactured seems to be obvious to everyone but you.

"Looking then at the specific circumstances, Whitney Houston was a model manufactured into a pop star with the help of a TV network and a major movie, her fame/success was the result of these efforts. She did not write a single one of her hits, she had no longevity, flaming out almost as soon as her videos went out of circulation, and she does not qualify on an historical footing."

See how easy that was? Youíre actually wrong on several points though. Mike Nesmith wrote Mary, Mary and several other hits. The Monkees also had a major hit before their show aired and were popular in Europe where the show did not air so you're kind of wrong there too. As far as music video is concerned, even the Beatles themselves have credited the Monkees for revolutionizing music video and putting rock and roll on t.v. in a way it had not been done before.

What is obvious to everyone but you is your personal dislike for the Monkees which is fueling this entire obsession you have with discrediting everything they did while making exceptions for everyone else. Every reason you have given is completely subjective. Music video fueling Michael Jacksonís career in the 1980ís is overstated?? Donít know what else to say other than youíre living in a dreamworld pal. As far as the Pixies are concerned, Iíll put just a little more weight behind the opinions of David Bowie and U2 than I do yours.

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 04:48am


@Jim: So I'm an old fogey because I don't respect rap in the same way I respect other music? Okay.
If all these other acts should be let in as you say, then they should change the name to Popular Music Hall of Fame because its not really about rock and roll anymore.
Are you actually comparing rap live to rock live? I know you really want to apologize for the genre but thats just silly. Rock music is so much better live its not even funny. Rock music is music that was built to be played live, rap is and has always been meant for the studio. You drawing an entire conclusion about rock music based on a few rock acts you don't care for (a predictable argument) is about as silly as you claiming rap and rock are equal live. Who really listens to Lose Yourself today besides rap fans? It already sounds dated and pretty much nobody outside of America and England even know it. I mean seriously, what rap songs do you think anyone will be singing along to 50 years from now? I'll bet you people will still be listening to "The Wall", "Stairway to Heavan", "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "Beat It", "What's Going On", etc. Do you really think any of the disposable music that is rap will be remembered in the same way? Just because some of its apologists demand its the same as rock music doesn't mean it is.

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 05:00am


If one were to use the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for a sports hall of fame, they would be taking into consideration things like strength of schedule, surrounding talent, system of offense, etc. for deciding whether guys like Joe Montana, Sandy Koufax or Charles Barkley got elected to the Hall of Fame. Their actual achievements would be secondary.

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 05:56am


Who listens to Lose Yourself? Quite a lot of people actually. Nearly all of the people I know know it. They're 15 and i'd wager that about 10% of them (and thsi is being optimistic) know who Led Zep even is. Certainly fewer know marvin gaye. also rap has no longetivity? Let me introduce you to a guy named Jay Z, 15 years and still famous, bigger than ever in fact!

Now let's look at a few "legendary" rockers.

Elvis: 15 years into his career he was a washed up fat guy repeating the same hits day in day out.

John Lennon: 15 year sinto his career and he was making albums no one even card about. Sure he would have Double Fantasy but that was nothign compared to his old stuff.

Rolling Stones: They were making rubbish disco music 15 years in.

Yo uget my point, don't you? Sure you have the odd case like Dylan who remains good even 40 years afterwards but they are the minority.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 09:23am


@GFW: omg did u seriously just compare Jay Z to John Lennon and Elvis? You officially can't be taken seriously anymore. Sorry, but the 10 people who make up your idiotic wannabe rapper friends don't represent the vast majority of music fans and it sounds like you have more disdain for the pioneers of rock music than anything else and think the achievements of rappers surpass what those bands did. I don't live in America and this may come as a shock to you but nobody in SE Asia pays any attention to decade old Eminem songs but you can go out anywhere in China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Japan or Singapore and still see bands playing Led Zeppelin, The Eagles or The Beatles quite regularly. The fact you're so impressed by a fat rapper named Jay-Z who has a bunch of disposable songs that nobody even knows or cares about 3 months after they're released says it all. Jay-Z is better known for his personal life than his "music" which requires no instruments, no singing and no actual humans playing anything. I guess "Single Ladies" is your "Let It Be" right? LMAO. You don't even like rock and roll. Why are you even here?

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 10:15am


and btw, Double Fantasy is the top-selling John Lennon solo album of all time and spent 8 weeks at the number one spot producing a #1 and #2 hit song.

Tattoo You released in 1981 went straight to #1 and is one of the best selling Stones records of all time. Not bad for "rubbish" eh?

Any more incredibly stupid comments for me to debunk or is that it for now?

What is Eminem now anyway besides a washed up older looking rapper who milked the "I hate my mommy and I had a rotten childhood" thing as much as he could before he realized how limited rap is musically? The only reason he hasn't faded into obscurity is because record companies don't allow that to happen to its stars anymore. They'll find someway to recycle some boring house/techno/dance tune (the preferred choice of washed up rap/hip hop/pop stars) and shove them onstage with Rihanna or somebody and then talk about how "relevant" they still are in the music world. Gimme a break. Its disposable music, dude. Its crap and its not anything anyone will be learning to play on a piano or anything else 30 years from now.

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 10:34am


Neil Diamond and Don Kirshner are in! The Monkees and Deep Purple are next!

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 10:42am


@Roy: Astrodog should go tell Neil Diamond and Carole King the only reason their songs were hits was because of a t.v. show. ha ha

Posted by Mackdown on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 10:53am


Mackdown, if I didn't like rock and roll, why would my favourite artists be The Beatles and The Who?

I don't know what it's like in S.E Aisa, i live in the UK. And over here Decade old Eminem songs are still pretty damn popular, believe it or not! You wanna know why good rock tunes stick around? because they outlasted the many crap rock songs! Believe it or not, I do like rock, much more than I like rap. But at the same time I recognize Rap is a legitimate and good genre of music.

What I do hate however, is rockists like you loridng rock as if it's the next classical. Yes rap doesn't need singing or learning to play an instrument. But rapping in itself is a talent. I don't mean rhyming a few word together, but actually doing it well.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 14:16pm


also are we using commercial sucess as a sign of talent? well in which case, madonna>Led Zeppelin dude! and the saturday night fever soundtrack? better than sgt peppers!

(ps, eminems last album got to No.1 too!)

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 14:18pm


Mackdown-You're being a bit schizophrenic. You post over and over and over demanding that I respond to you and denouncing everything as a "joke." Then when I do it you get even more upset and engage in insults.

Why hasn't it been done again? Didn't the Partridge Family do just that? They were the lamest thing humanly possible and still had four top 10 albums. And as I've said all along, the Monkees were not lacking in talent and charisma.

While it's tempting to defer to your expertise on the early history of MTV, on their first day alone they played 211 videos. (Never let the facts get in your way). Video began coming into its own in the late 70s with outlets like Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, TOTPs, and Solid Gold among others. By late 81 it was a well known element of musical promotion. MTV was not exactly looping five bands over and over again. And especially in its early years, it was known for its content diversity. Was there selectivity? Of course. Which made it no different than radio. But you are free to insist that being one of hundreds of bands taking advantage of a developing promotional medium was the same as having an exclusive network TV show in 1966.

Incidentally the show also aired in the UK among other markets where it was briefly a hit in 1966-67. It sparked a brief mania before a backlash occurred. (Forget it, he's rolling :)).

I see you claim to be confused yet again (this time really confused-you might want to have a doctor check that out) about what I wrote about Whitney Houston. I thought it was pretty self-explantory. I have my own objections, but Houston had a much bigger commercial career than the Monkees and much greater longevity. And btw she had three multiplatinum albums and nine No. 1 singles before the Bodyguard was released in 1992. She also had multiplatinum albums in 1985, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1996 and 1998 and platinum albums in 2002 and 2009. Commercially the Monkees really lasted less than two years coinciding with the show. Even if you think she is just as manufactured as the Monkees, those are valid grounds to differentiate them. Maybe if the Monkees sold 150+ million albums and had 11 No. 1 singles I would see it differently despite my objections. It's really not too difficult to grasp. All that said, I've never advocated for Houston's induction.

Last Train to Clarkesville was not a major hit before the show aired. Mary, Mary charted in Asutralia but not the US or UK. Alternate Take went top five in the UK. (As I stated at the very beginning when I noted that Nesmith was a good songwriter, they were not without talent). But the fact remains that there major hits were all written for them.

You get the last word.




@astrodog: Wow you really poured your heart out. I must have touched a nerve. Unfortunately you simply repeated the same drivel as before offering nothing more than your subjective opinion. You continue to overlook the fact that ALL fame is manufactured and the Monkees road to success was little different from most anyone else's at that time or since. Tell me, if it was so easy to just cast 4 guys in a show, bring in some producers and songwriters and sell 65 million records than why hasn't it been done again? If it was so easy you'd think they would have just continued doing it over and over again right? You obviously don't know the history of MTV very well either. There weren't hundreds of other bands in the rotation at the same time. MTV together with record companies chose who they thought would be the most marketable and the most t.v. friendly (sound familiar?) and put those videos into heavy rotation. Those videos also aired 24 hours a day, not a 30 minute timeslot once a week. You claiming 30 minutes once a week is a greater advantage than MTV's 24 hour exposure 7 days a week on a network every high school student in America was glued to day and night is nothing more than your opinion, and it is wrong.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not and has never been about recognizing the greatest acts of all time and that is evidenced by the fact the Shirelles and Ritchie Valens are in. You claim the Monkees' success was entirely due to their television series, but they were also wildly popular in the UK and Europe. How do you explain (or in your case make an excuse for) that?
The Partridge Family was another attempt at what the Monkees did that was a fraction of the same success. If anything that strengthens their case. And as I have already demonstrated multiple times, the fact they didnít write SOME of their hits is completely irrelevant in this discussion. You continue to hold the Monkees to a standard you hold nobody else to. All fame is manufactured and you're living in denial if you think otherwise. As soon as Elvisí bad movies finished his career took a nosedive as well but congratulations, you just made a case against Elvis being inducted into the RRHOF if you read word for word what you just wrote. Nobody said they had the same cultural impact as Elvis, but they did have a cultural impact in the form of music video which cannot be denied.
The Shirelles were another one of many girl groups at that time. If you use the standards which you and others have described they should not be inducted. Using the criteria you just described, The Monkees were one of the original boy bands in the early stages of rock and roll. They were one of the most successful acts of the 1960ís, were the first to use music video as a major vehicle for success and increased the visibility and success of the genre. Those are the facts dude. They had a significant moment in rock history and should be recognized for it. I donít understand why that is so unacceptable to you for any other reason then you have a personal dislike for them.
Okay Iím really confused now. According to you its okay if some artists use t.v. to advance their careers except in the case of the Monkees. Now commercial success is okay to apply to Whitney Houston but this same reasoning cannot be used with the Monkees? Huh? Again, I would respect your opinion a little more if you were at least consistent. If you are going to qualify the Monkees record sales due to their t.v. show than you absolutely must qualify Whitney Houstonís record sales with the double dose of a hit movie and heavy video rotation promoting a song she did not write or have any part in the production of. Her longevity is drastically overstated as well. She was popular from 1985 to around 1992. She basically disappeared from sight for most of the next 2 decades. Again, you apply a standard to the Monkees you wonít apply to anyone else. You claim being on t.v. 30 minutes once a week is a better advantage than having a heavily promoted feature film together with a video in heavy rotation promoting a song that had already been made famous by someone else, is about as out there as you can get. The fact all fame is manufactured seems to be obvious to everyone but you.

"Looking then at the specific circumstances, Whitney Houston was a model manufactured into a pop star with the help of a TV network and a major movie, her fame/success was the result of these efforts. She did not write a single one of her hits, she had no longevity, flaming out almost as soon as her videos went out of circulation, and she does not qualify on an historical footing."

See how easy that was? Youíre actually wrong on several points though. Mike Nesmith wrote Mary, Mary and several other hits. The Monkees also had a major hit before their show aired and were popular in Europe where the show did not air so you're kind of wrong there too. As far as music video is concerned, even the Beatles themselves have credited the Monkees for revolutionizing music video and putting rock and roll on t.v. in a way it had not been done before.

What is obvious to everyone but you is your personal dislike for the Monkees which is fueling this entire obsession you have with discrediting everything they did while making exceptions for everyone else. Every reason you have given is completely subjective. Music video fueling Michael Jacksonís career in the 1980ís is overstated?? Donít know what else to say other than youíre living in a dreamworld pal. As far as the Pixies are concerned, Iíll put just a little more weight behind the opinions of David Bowie and U2 than I do yours.


Posted by astrodog on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 15:56pm


@astrodog: You keep whining about being insulted but your comments have been the most rude and insulting of any. You are also extremely condescending.
The Partridge Family had a small fraction of the success the Monkees did. Claiming the Monkees should be lumped into the same category is the same as saying the Beatles should be lumped into the same category with Herman's Hermits. Again, if it was so easy to just cast 4 guys as a rock group and sell 65 million records, why didn't they just keep doing it? The fact other attempts at it were not nearly as successful kind of undermines your entire argument.
And since you seem to think having a 30 minute show once a week that aired new songs ONCE during a short video segment was such an amazing advantage, have you ever considered that in promoting new songs an artist with a video in heavy rotation on MTV had a song/video played more times in one day than a new Monkees video would air in a month? So a video promoting a song airing to an even larger television audience 4-6 times a day everyday is less of an advantage than a video promoting a song airing 2 or 3 times a month?? huh?? I don't see this huge advantage you seem to think exists. And donít give me this ďt.v. was different back thenĒ crap either. When MTV debuted in 1981 there were less than 10 channels on t.v. By 1983 MTV had grow into a monster and had just as much of a captive audience as NBC did at that time. Maybe even more so considering the demographic that tuned in. Again, if it was so easy to just stumble into fame and sell 65 million records as you say, then I donít understand why everyone wasnít doing it. You seem to be convinced that MTV had little impact on record sales or the entertainment industry at that time and nothing could be further from the truth. Hell, donít take my word for it.

Leonard J. Beer
Editor-in-Chief, Hits Magazine
MTV is the most powerful force that's probably ever happened in the music business. You know, you can make a star overnight if they make the right video, and if the right magic happens, you know.
It also burns them out quicker. You know, you saw somebody like Pearl Jam who had the biggest videos on MTV for years, and then all of a sudden they decided they didn't want to be on MTV anymore because they felt it was hurting their long-term career. Afterwards they had a career for awhile. They still sell concert tickets. But they diminished, you know. I think they did need the MTV force behind them because they were one of the great MTV icons.Ö SOUND FAMILIAR???

The crux of your entire argument seems to be two things: That the Monkees having a t.v. show was a greater advantage than having videos in heavy circulation on MTV. That is not correct as I have already demonstrated multiple times. Your other argument is that the Monkees' record sales were only due to their television series. Wrong again as I have already demonstrated multiple times. I think Neil Diamond, Carole King, Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye and Hal Blaine might all disagree with you vehemently on that point. Last Train to Clarksville was a hit before the show even aired and would have been regardless. Thats a fact. The show didn't even air in most of Europe and was barely on in the UK and still produced a #1 album there. Would the music have been as successful without the t.v. show? Of course not. But Madonna, Britney Spears, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, etc. would not have been nearly as successful without MTV. You can deny that all you want but I don't think you'll find many people who will agree with you.

Comparing record sales from two different eras is absurd. The music industry and its customer base was far bigger in the late 80's and early 90's than it was in the mid 1960's. The Monkees were one of the most successful acts of the 60's and revolutionized music video. Comparing their record sales of that era is like comparing the Monkees (who are still one of rock's all-time best selling acts) to Ritchie Valens or the Shirelles. Both of those artists flamed out fairly quickly as well but apparently that's only a point of interest for you when talking about the Monkees. Coincidentally, the Shirelles performed songs written by some of the very same songwriters of the Monkees but for some reason they get inducted into the RRHOF for singing those songs while the Monkees get ridiculed. Ritchie Valens never even had an album crack the top 10.

As far as Whitney Houston is concerned, her total record sales compared to the Monkees is irrelevant. Both were highly successful in their eras. Her "longevity" is nothing more than a couple of years. He music was even more bubble gum than the Monkees was, she had far less to do with the production of her albums and zero impact on the future of the industry. As I have already stated, an MTV video in heavy rotation multiple times a day together with a major feature film promoting a song that was already famous is a FAR greater advantage than having a song promoted maybe two or three times in a month via a 30 minute comedy show. And speaking of schizophrenic, you were claiming the Monkees deserved as asterisk next to their record sales while now it seems you have backed off that ridiculous comment after having a look at how other fame is just as manufactured. A claim you only seem to think applies to the Monkees.

The bottom line is the Monkees revolutionized music video whether you want to admit it or not. Did they take the idea from a Hard Days Night? Sure. But if you want to play that game you can take anything any artist has ever done and trace it back to a previous artist. The Monkees brought music video and rock and roll music to television in a way that had not been done before increasing both the visibility and popularity of the genre. Its no coincidence that MTV in its early days looked to Mike Nesmith as a consultant and used one of his projects as a basis for MTV.
With the Monkees commercial success and contributions in pioneering music video they should most definitely be recognized for it. Whether its by the laughable Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or not I could care less as that entire institution is a joke nobody even takes seriously.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 00:31am


@GFW: Fair enough, but rap's popularity is limited to the US, the UK and a few places in Europe for the most part. Internationally John Lennon, Mick Jagger and Elvis are FAR more well known than any rap artist.
I don't deny rap as an art form, its just not one that I particularly care for. And I don't consider it on par with rock which requires not only the ability to write rhymes, but vocal talent and the ability to play an instrument. You may hate rockists like me who hold that opinion, but what I hate are these elitist pricks who act like there is something wrong with you if you don't like rap or rank it musically on par with rock, jazz, etc. For what they do they are quite good I am not denying that. But I will never accept that it takes as much dedication to write a rap tune as it does to sit down and learn to read music, play the cello, the guitar or the trumpet. As someone who plays music myself it took me YEARS to become proficient on the guitar and the piano and I stand in awe of guys like Jimmy Page, Roy Clark, Eddie Van Halen, Miles Davis, Neal Pert etc. I don't put 50 Cent, Emimen and Jay-Z on their level and I never will. A Big Mac may taste better than Cordon Bleu to a teenager but it doesn't mean that its better quality.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 01:01am


I just posted a poll question on the ESPN.com message board (the most visited message board community on the web) and asked if they considered the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to be legitimate or a joke. Lets just say the RRHOF isn't polling very well! ha ha.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 02:58am


Ooooh, was there a comment section, too? I bet all of the Big 4 cliches were represented ad nauseum: "Rush! Kiss!" zombies, "rap izn't rok d00d!!!1!!!", laundry lists of mostly insignificant mullet rockers and "how is Madonna in, but blah, blah, blah, that I used to have in my 8-track collection isn't?".

I'd be very disappointed if any of these well worn eye rollers were passed over.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 03:19am


@DarinRG: Doesn't change the fact nobody takes the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame seriously. There are FAR too many notable exceptions to take it seriously and it should most definitely stop calling itself the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Its corrupted induction policies are well documented.
The fact you consider some of the most successful acts in ROCK history insignificant mullet rockers tells me you're not so much a fan of rock music period. I see people around this dumb forum bashing those guys (who actually wrote their own songs and played their own instruments) then I do the rap and hip artists who built their careers ripping off others.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 03:48am


The most frequent criticism of the Hall of Fame is that the nomination process is controlled by a few individuals who are not themselves musicians, such as founder Jann Wenner (who has filled the position of managing editor for Rolling Stone magazine), former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their personal tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. A former member of the nominations board once commented that "At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist...I saw how certain pioneering artists of the '50s and early '60s were shunned because there needed to be more name power on the list, resulting in '70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today."
There is also controversy in the lack of transparency in the selection process. Janet Morrissey of The New York Times wrote, "With fame and money at stake, itís no surprise that a lot of backstage lobbying goes on. Why any particular act is chosen in any particular year is a mystery to performers as well as outsiders Ė and committee members say they want to keep it that way." Jon Landau, the chairman of the nominating committee, says they prefer it that way. "Weíve done a good job of keeping the proceedings nontransparent. It all dies in the room."
According to Fox News, petitions with tens of thousands of signatures were also being ignored, and some groups that were signed with certain labels or companies or were affiliated with various committee members have even been put up for nomination with no discussion at all. The committee has also been accused of largely ignoring certain genres. According to author Brett Milano, "entire genres get passed over, particularly progressive rock, '60s Top 40, New Orleans funk and a whole lot of black music."
Another criticism is that too many artists are inducted. In fifteen years, 97 different artists have been inducted. A minimum of 50% of the vote is needed to be inducted; although, the final percentages are not announced and a certain number of inductees (five in 2011) is set before the ballots are shipped. The committee usually nominates a small number of artists (12 in 2010) from an increasing number of different genres. Several voters, including Joel Selvin, himself a former member of the nominating committee, didn't submit their ballots in 2007 because they didn't feel that any of the candidates were truly worthy.
The surviving members of the British punk rock band Sex Pistols, inducted in 2006, refused to attend the ceremony, calling the museum "a piss stain".

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 03:53am


First, I agree that the nomination process is broken. I stated that the other night. Nonetheless, I don't see too many undeserving acts being inducted. I do see plenty of deserving acts being left out, some we'd agree on and some we wouldn't.

As far as the "nobody takes the HoF seriously" line that's one of your major go to comments, it's pure hyperbole. I know plenty of serious students of Rock history who do take it seriously, all agree that it has its issues, but flawed and meaningless are two different things.

As far as the "insignificant mullet rockers" that I mentioned, I'm of the opinion that the 70s were awash in "white guitar rawk" acts who broke little to no new ground and don't have a lasting significance beyond nostalgia for people who had sweet 8-track collections back in the day. Any of the regulars around here know that I'm more respecting of a lesser known band who was original and innovative and broke new ground than a band just walking through a tried and true formula and cashing in. Many of those regular commentators here see things very differently than me, but we all still listen to each others ideas and treat each other with respect because we've all earned that from one another over our time here together.

You've shown me that you're capable of being a civil and credible member of our community, but you still spend the vast majority of you time here trolling. I understand that you have some firm and deeply rooted opinions that are in a minority on this site. Many of us do, and we just learn to accept it and not freak about it all day long.

If this is a "dumb forum" or you're so deeply bothered that there are opinions here different than your own, why do you keep coming back?

I'd love to see you stick around so we can have more conversations like the one we had about Glen Campbell the other night. You do have a lot of common ground with people around here that can be tapped into, but you have to understand that you've put yourself out there in a very antagonistic and disrespectful manner since you showed up.

If this forum sucks so badly, just go away. If you want to stick around and participate in the community here, please do, but accept that people are going to have different points of view than your own, you can't paint people with presumptuous broad strokes because of it (you'll get it wrong every time if you try with this gang) and, most importantly, it's not worth raging about all day.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 04:50am


@DarinRG: You don't see too many undeserving acts being inducted? Patty Smith? ABBA? Alice Cooper?? Come on. Those acts are a joke. And speaking of hyperbole, your incredibly subjective and borderline racist comment about "white rawk" is nothing more than your opinion. I think rap and hip hop are awful and I barely consider them music let alone rock and roll. Regardless, are you actually suggesting that Rush, Genesis, Deep Purple, KISS, the Moody Blues, etc. broke no new ground? Nevermind the fact "breaking new ground" has never been a criteria for allowing in the vast majority of other artists. Face it. The only reason those acts have not been inducted is because the jerks on the nominating committee do not like that particular genre. NO OTHER REASON. You defending that makes you look foolish. If subjective musical tastes are being used as a criteria (which they obviously are), then the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is most certainly a joke which the majority of people seem to agree it is. In addition to those being some of the finest musicians to ever play popular music, many of us don't consider them insignificant in the least. Please tell me the great contributions to rock music that came from Madonna, ABBA or Grandmaster Flash (who actually got in because the voting process was rigged)? I consider those acts to be awful and completely insignificant.
The truth is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is the most controversial of any hall of fame, has the most corrupt, non-transparent nomination process and most importantly is not about rock and roll. It is about CERTAIN popular music the elitist jerks at Rolling Stone magazine prefer. Look no further than the fact rap artists are allowed while country artists are not despite the fact rock has FAR more similarities to country. I put about as much stock in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as I do the Nickelodean Kids Choice Awards. Maybe even less.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:12am


Next to the SEX-PISTOLS rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain. Your museum. Urine in wine. Were not coming. Were not your monkey and so what? Fame at $25,000 if we paid for a table, or $15000 to squeak up in the gallery, goes to a non-profit organization selling us a load of old famous. Congratulations. If you voted for us, hope you noted your reasons. Your anonymous as judges, but you're still music industry people. Were not coming. Your not paying attention. Outside the shit-stem is a real SEX PISTOL.

John Lydon, Sex Pistols original member

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:20am


Damn, I can't even respond yet and you're already trolling again.

Enjoy yourself.

Cheers.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:25am


How am I trolling? This is a legitimate issue whether the RRHOF and its apologists want to admit it or not. There are many many people inside the industry and out that consider the entire thing to be one big joke. And they have a valid point. It should be renamed: The Popular Music Hall of Fame According to Jann Wenner and the Writers of Rolling Stone Magazine. Because thats precisely what it is. Calling it the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is dishonest and false advertising.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:28am


^That comment the Sex Pistols gave was pure hypocrisy. If they truly didn't care about the Hall of Fame, they wouldn't have bothered writing a note. The only effect the comment had was to prove the illiteracy of the Sex Pistols and how they lack professional etiquette.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:37am


@Tahvo Parvianen: Hypocrisy?? It would have been hypocrisy for them to accept the award. Jann Wenner and Suze Evans however would like to thank you for your continued support regardless of how much of a sham their cash cow RRHOF is. John Lydon's comments were spot on. Screw the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
I mean seriously, how much of a narcissistic asshole is Jann Wenner? They guy actually elects himself to his own Hall of Fame. Hilarious.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:42am


Excerpt from an excellent article about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from New York Times and National Review contributor Mark Goldblatt:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262076/rock-and-roll-hall-lame-mark-goldblatt?pg=2

Indeed, if you take a step back, the hall resembles less a roll call of immortals than a high-school clique rooted in the anti-establishment ethos of the late 1960s. The sophomoric perception of coolness, rather than any discernable artistic or popular measure, seems the coin of the realm. Thus, a third-tier band like Buffalo Springfield gets in because two of its members ó Stephen Stills and Neil Young ó went on to perform at the boomer-hallowed Woodstock concert, whereas the Monkees, who rivaled the Beach Boys as the biggest American act of the decade, get shafted because they were put together by an entertainment conglomerate. (Ewww, like a corporation, man!)
The question of criteria, of course, is the 800-pound gorilla in every discussion of the Hall. Despite the fact that rock and roll is an avowedly proletarian art form, its Hall of Fame is even more of an elitist enterprise than most comparable institutions. Think about it. If I want to argue that Bobby Murcer belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame, I can bring forward verifiable evidence ó career stats, individual awards, team championships ó to support my case. Iíll lose, based on that evidence, but at least Iíll have the satisfaction of engaging in a fair and open debate. What satisfaction is available to a fan of Grand Funk or the Moody Blues? All the verifiable evidence ó again: record sales, fan base, lasting influence ó points in their favor. But their case is denied, year after year, by a priesthood of industry insiders, who may take into account verifiable evidence, but in the end decide based on their own Beavis and Butthead aesthetic: ďThat kicks ass!Ē versus ďThatís lame!Ē

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:50am


Yes it's hypocrisy. If anything it only proves their immaturity at trying to appear "different" by refusing to accept such an award. Unfortunately, it only made them look stupid and crude.

" Jann Wenner and Suze Evans however would like to thank you for your continued support"

Well in that case, they're welcome.

"I mean seriously, how much of a narcissistic asshole is Jann Wenner? "

Hey, the guy IS a pompous dick, I've never denied that. I don't know if I'd call him an asshole since I don't know him personally, but his actions don't do much to refute that accusation.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:51am


Also, why hate on Alice Cooper? Patti Smith I can understand but what did Alice Cooper ever do to deserve your wrath? (I'm not an Alice Cooper fan, by the way)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:56am


"Patty Smith? ABBA? Alice Cooper??"

No issue with any of them, though Patti Smith got in too soon. New York Dolls, Suicide, Television and Richard Hell & the Voidoids are all more important bands from the 70s New York scene.

"your incredibly subjective and borderline racist comment about "white rawk" is nothing more than your opinion."

It's okay, some of my best friends are white. And my opinion is the only one I have.

"Regardless, are you actually suggesting that Rush, Genesis, Deep Purple, KISS, the Moody Blues, etc. broke no new ground?"

You presented these specific examples, not me. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Three Dog Nights, Ted Nugents and Bostons of the world.

But, just to play along... Rush - I've already said that they're on the lower end of my top 10 snubs. Genesis is deserving of their induction even though their post-Peter Gabriel output was unlistenable garbage. Deep Purple - I consider them and Kraftwerk to be the two biggest snubs out there. Moody Blues would be on my top-5 snub list. And last and most certainly least is Kiss. Take away the make-up and you've got nothing of merit. Mediocre paint by numbers rawk. They can't wait long enough for my liking.

Everything else is just running in circles.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 06:30am


Mackdown-I gave you the last word, but one final comment. First, sorry if you find me insulting, but I give and take. Whining? Well I'd say that's a two way street judging from the preceding comments.

The best way to look at MTV was that it was like a national radio station. It absolutely helped the artists in that era. It eventually became so formulaic that record labels discovered how to exploit it (the Milli Vanilli effect). The core difference to me is that video and MTV was a medium that all artists could avail themselves of. There was selectivity but you are still taking about hundreds of acts, especially in MTV's early 80s heydey. And radio in that era was even more selective. The Monkees TV show was in contrast solely a showcase for them, in an era where the networks had a virtual monopoly on television entertainment. For me it's a valid distinction; it was simply a gigantic promotional advantage that they were given over every one of their contemporaries.

But all that aside, even if the effect of the Monkees TV show is disregarded, you still have a band that had minimal involvement on its early albums, and most importantly a band that did not write any of its major hits. You add to that the limited duration of their commercial run and I think their induction is an uphill battle. We can disagree.

I see that you acknowledge that the Monkees TV show did air in the UK and parts of Europe. Not sure about Australia.

Finally, as examples of the TV model for selling music: Glee (which even surpassed a few chart records), American Idol, X-Factor. All fame is manufactured, but in some cases much more than others.

And that's that. Who knows what the future brings.

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 08:15am


@DarinRG: Kiss is one of the most successful rock acts of all time. I realize the artsy fartsy "we all know more than you do" crowd at Rolling Stone magazine doesn't like them, but there are millions of rock fans who do and they were a major part of rock music in the 1970's. Take away Alice Cooper's makeup and he's nothing but a bad Black Sabbath imitation. The truth is Kiss didn't rank high enough on the "cool" meter for you and the rest of the elitist pricks who vote for the Hall of Fame.
Patty Smith is awful. Nobody even knows or cares who she is besides arty fartsy music critics. To suggest she deserves to be in the RRHOF more so than Rush or Kiss or the Moody Blues is beyond absurd.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 08:27am


The problem with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is that it has become an elitist version of a good ole boy's club and has created more animosity and division than anything else. It goes against everything that rock and roll is supposed to stand for. It is subjective and judgmental, it literally spits in the face of millions of fans of several genres and bands that had a major part in furthering the popularity and development of rock music as an art form. It tells us that certain genres have more value than others for no other reason than that is the music those who get to vote prefer. It has attempted to redefine the meaning of what is rock and roll according to standards nobody but themselves can figure out and in reality is an insult to ROCK fans everywhere. Who the hell is anyone to say a ridiculous song like "Fight For Your Right To Party" has anymore artistic or historical value than Rush's "Spirit Of Radio?"
There are way too many glaring omissions from the HOF to take it seriously. To claim that progressive rock even hair metal has less value as art form than rap and hip hop is strictly a matter of OPINION. Nevermind the fact rap and hip hop are not even rock and roll, but actually playing rock and roll music hasn't been a requirement for getting into the RRHOF in a long time. The whole thing is a joke nobody takes seriously.

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 08:41am


Mackdown - Put down the bottle, take your meds or go away. Jesus.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 08:44am


Mackdown, Darin does have a point, you're starting to contradict yourself and sound repetitive, For instance you said:

"Who the hell is anyone to say a ridiculous song like 'Fight For Your Right To Party' has anymore artistic or historical value than Rush's 'Spirit Of Radio?'"

And then you said:

"To claim that progressive rock even hair metal has less value as art form than rap and hip hop is strictly a matter of OPINION"

Notice the irony?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 09:40am


I wonder, how many people would igve a shit about Kiss if they never ptu on the makeup? Probably a lot less than they do now.

Also Abba is undeserving? Eh no. Abba were a great pop group, as much as the word Pop might sicken you.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 11:50am


Mackdown, how can you attack Alice Cooper and defend KISS when Cooper was probably KISS's biggest influence? And although I also prefer Rush, Patti Smith and Rush have the same number of top 40 pop hits (1), so I wouldn't say nobody's heard of her. "Because the Night" is still in the classic rock radio canon (and it's pretty rare you'll even hear any KISS songs on classic rock stations now except for "Rock and Roll All Night", "Beth", or "Detroit Rock City")...

I kind of disagree with DarinRG on Boston being totally worthless. I think they pioneered a level of slick overproduction that was an unspoken influence on most of the AOR/arena rock that followed (probably inspiring Journey, Kansas, REO Speedwagon, and Styx all to change direction from their proggish roots). The hard rock bands that preceded them tended to be more "boogie" (Aerosmith, Foghat, early AC/DC, etc...) and the ones that followed had the same kind of slick production (Eddie Money, Bryan Adams, Loverboy, Night Ranger...) To be sure, very little of what they influenced was notable, and their effect probably did lead to a sterilization of AOR and mainstream hard rock in general, and their one great album that they repeated over and over probably isn't enough to make a hall case, but I probably would have personally taken them over Bad Company (inducted in the Projected project), who seem to have less direct influence, even if Paul Rodgers is a legendary singer. Maybe Boston gets bonus points for "More Than A Feeling" inspiring the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" guitar riff, which finally ended the sterile AOR period Boston helped start (even though I acknowledge "More Than A Feeling" itself rips off "Walk Away Renee", "Louie Louie" and even "I Don't Know How to Love Him" from the Jesus Christ Superstar soundtrack - or am I dreaming?) Even though I like them, it's probably a "no" on a hall case though I could see arguing for them over Journey, Bad Company, or Bon Jovi, which were inducted here. Hell, I think they actually had at least as much if not more influence on the SOUND of arena rock than KISS did honestly, but nobody acknowledges it (KISS's influence was primarily their marketing and stage antics). Hair bands like Def Leppard ACT more like KISS, but they SOUND more like Boston to me (probably in part because Def Leppard was using the Rockman guitar amplifier that Tom Scholz invented...) That said, they're not any kind of major snub and they certainly don't belong in before Kraftwerk, Joy Division, The Cure, Deep Purple, the major prog bands (who largely inspired Boston), Public Enemy, etc... I'd take KISS over them since more bands directly cite them (despite liking Boston and hating KISS), but I do think Boston's sound was kind of influential on the AOR that followed. Definitely not innovative.

I definitely agree that Three Dog Night and Ted Nugent are not deserving. I just think somebody like um, REO Speedwagon may have been a better example than Boston, because Boston did have a layered production that was distinctive (although definitely derived from previous prog bands), while most of the other arena rock bands were even more generic.

But Mackdown, Darin is actually way more generous towards mainstream hard rock acts than a lot of the people who tend to favor the punk/post-punk acts like he does. On the Projected thread, I recall him accepting Journey, Heart, and Bon Jovi as viable candidates, which plenty of the other knowledgeable posters here would never have (Casper, Chalkie, Kit, William, and Liam especially). Darin did not rank KISS and Def Leppard as the bottom two on his Revisited snub rankings, which Chalkie did. You're criticizing him for hating white mullet acts when frankly he seems to acknowledge them more than other post-punk fans. It's bizarre to me... I don't think he ever attacked the Monkees either. He's one of the most gracious people here and I don't get why you're criticizing him.

Posted by Sean on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 14:17pm


Well, I personally don't agree with Darin on KISS. He criticizes them as paint-by numbers rock underneath the makeup, and I personally agree, but I don't think thats bad. Alice Cooper and GNR were paint-by-numbers rock and roll under their makeup too. And there was nothing new about AC/DC or Aerosmith, unless you believe Aerosmith were proto-hair metal (in which case I think you must include KISS in there too).

With that being said, Mackdown is just being a douche. Darin is probably one of the nicest people on this site, and when you disagree with him he isn't an in-your-face asshole about it like others were. He actually made a comment on the Projected section where he said he views the Hall in kind of a historical fashion and in that regard he can't complain about Bon Jovi, Heart or Journey. That takes some class IMO.

In the end, we all have our views on what belongs and what doesn't, and thats fine. But try being more respectful about it Mackdown.

Posted by Jim on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 16:33pm


The problem with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is that it has become an elitist version of a good ole boy's club and has created more animosity and division than anything else. It goes against everything that rock and roll is supposed to stand for. It is subjective and judgmental, it literally spits in the face of millions of fans of several genres and bands that had a major part in furthering the popularity and development of rock music as an art form. It tells us that certain genres have more value than others for no other reason than that is the music those who get to vote prefer. It has attempted to redefine the meaning of what is rock and roll according to standards nobody but themselves can figure out and in reality is an insult to ROCK fans everywhere.

etc., etc....

Posted by Mackdown on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 08:41am
--------------------------------------------------
Been following you & astro since you both started toying around w/the Monkees. For the record, I'll not leap into your arguments over them (I have my own take on it, and it can keep).

I will say I'm 50/50 w/you on rap. I fully understand where you are coming from regarding instrumentation w/in a rock group. Like a lot of others, I do prefer rock over rap, & I feel that rap is in fact quite limited.

That being said, rap DOES have a history. The period from 1979-1992 or so should be recognized in the Rock Hall, if only because they've let so many other pop artists in already that it would make no sense Not to include these early works. Their is a diff. between the disco-influenced rap of 79-82, the electro/synth styled 83-85 tunes, & the break-beat music of 86 onward. (And yes, I am aware that those dates are ONLY generalizations).

In addition, those comments on Pearl Jam from that editor had it all backwards. PJ did three or four videos for their TEN album in 91/92, then, w/the exception of an animated video they were not a part of (in 98), didn't show up at all for another 14 years, by which point MTV was awash w/market-driven reality shows. They managed three #1 albums w/out the videos (yet they didn't hit #1 w/any of the albums that had videos attached - kinda strange, huh???).

Beyond all of this, Mack, is your reaction to the Rock Hall. I'm like a lot of people who agree that the whole system is rigged, & that it IS quite elitist. Yet your yelling is in fact just what they want. I've often argued that acts are left out for the controversy they cause amongst rock fans. I think you know this as well. I'm convinced that someone from the actual Cleveland Rock Hall does visit this site on occasion (along w/others no doubt) but makes sure their presence is not known. I think you can feel satisfied that they are probably reading what you've said. How this will affect the outcome of bands on the outside looking in is debatable.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 19:44pm


Thanks for the kind words, everybody. I know I can be opinionated and I definitely have a certain avenue of music that I value more than others, but I do try to treat others points of view with legitimacy and be respectful about disagreements that do come up.

In hindsight, I also agree with Sean that I may have sold Boston a bit short lumping them in with Three Dog Night and Nugent. They're not a band that I hold in high esteem personally, but objectively speaking, they deserve better than that categorization.

As far as my final blowing off of the conversation with Mackdown, I just got sick of arguing in circles, having words put in my mouth and being called names when I tried hard to be civil and level headed about everything.

He can troll away to his heart's content. I'm done.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 20:57pm


"Ritchie Valens never even had an album crack the top 10."

C'mon Mackdown. I think you can cut Ritchie Valens some slack considering he died at the tender age of 17 under uncontrollable circumstances. It's kind of unfair to say he never had a top 10 album considering he was only active for about a couple years.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 07:37am


I don't care whether the Monkees get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or not. They were my first love of rock and roll and the reason I begged my mom to buy me a guitar when I was only 9 years old. If critics or others who just enjoy tearing music down they don't like don't like them I could care less.
I do find it interesting however that Kiss and Rush are given no credit for any of the influence they had on rock music (an absurd claim) while Grandmaster Flash and The Beastie Boys are considered gods for contributing to the demise of rock more than anything else. If all these rap and hip hop acts everyone claims are so influential are so wonderful, then the state of modern music must be really really great these days! What are the results of their influences? Contemporary music SUCKS and I don't care if that makes me sound old (I'm 44). Nobody is doing anything even moderately interesting. Rock music is basically dead and the most popular form of music is house/techno garbage from professional lip syncers like Rihanna and Chris Brown. PA PA PA PA POKER FACE... yeesh don't make me puke. Sorry, but I'm not impressed with the lip sync generation of music in the least. You can bash prego rock and worship rap and hip hop artists all you want but as far as I'm concerned rap and hip hop have affected music in a negative way and contributed to the sorry state of popular music that exists today. I'll hop on that time machine back to a time where pop stars could play instruments, having a beer when you're in high school didn't result in a SWAT team being called and you could have sex without a condom and worry about little more than crabs! Take me there!

Posted by Mackdown on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 08:52am


@DarinRG: Sorry if I was cross Darin I'm sure you're a nice guy. My music is very personal to me and I take it as an affront when people dismiss it as insignificant rubbish. Much of the music of the 70's and 80's was the soundtrack of my life when I was growing up and when people who did not experience that trivialize it, it can come across as quite offensive.
Again, I apologize for being cross.

Posted by Mackdown on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 09:14am


I'm still seeing alot of the "who influenced who" argument around here. This is a completely useless argument as trying to figure out who influenced who is subjective and pure speculation. And when using this criteria, the RRHOF contradicts itself all over the place. Arguing that the Ronettes or the Shirelles were more influential than the Moody Blues is a matter of serious opinion and is highly debatable. This argument is completely useless as it is quite clear the RRHOF uses personal musical preference as the major criteria in its nomination process. If an artist doesn't rank high enough on their cool meter they are out period. Achievements should be used as a criteria as they are in every single Hall of Fame except the Piss Stain.

Posted by Mackdown on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 09:32am


"Contemporary music SUCKS and I don't care if that makes me sound old (I'm 44). Nobody is doing anything even moderately interesting. "

Really? Have you listened to the White Stripes, Sigur Ros, the Killers, the Black Keys, Wilco, Franz Ferdinand, Vampire Weekend, Maroon 5, Arcade Fire, Okkervil River, the Sheepdogs or White Denim, just to name a few recently? All of these are/(have been) doing interesting things. Yes, most of the recent mainstream Top 40 stuff the radio churns out is complete crap (Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, etc) but there's plenty of interesting stuff out there too. You just need to do a little digging.

Even look up a little band like the Baseballs. They've done an excellent cover of Katy Perry's awful "Hot N' Cold" that is a million times better than the original (They've also done covers of "Umbrella" and "Candy Shop" the latter originally by this terrible rapper called 50 Cent that far outweigh the originals)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 09:44am


Actually, now that I mentioned the Baseballs, rockabilly is doing pretty good for itself nowadays. The Jets, the Lennerockers, the Baboons and Top Cats (the Swedish band, there a few with this name) are all bands that have released material in the last decade or so (Top Cats just released their album earlier just a little over a month or so ago, yes rockabilly in 2012!!)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 09:57am


@Tahvo Parvianen: Gimme a break dude. Ive listened to most of those bands and none of them jump out at you. The White Stripes are decent, not great. Every song by the Killers sounds the same and Arcade Fire is BORING. There is nobody doing anything great today, especially in mainstream pop (a genre that used to produce good music). When I was growing up you could turn on the radio and hear great music. Today you have to dig to find something even decent. Name me one record of the last 10 years that has had any kind of real cultural impact in the least. When I was growing up I witnessed the release of The Wall, Thriller, U2's Joshua Tree, Synchronicity by the Police, Appetite for Destruction, etc. When was the last time a record of that magnitude came out? Music and its artists are disposable and interchangeable these days. This is the great final product from the efforts of the immortal Grand Master Flash, The Beastie Boys, Moby (who I'm sure will get in someday), Public Enemy, etc. Today's music blows.

Posted by Mackdown on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 10:09am


I hear you I'm just saying it's not ALL crap.

"When I was growing up I witnessed the release of The Wall, Thriller, U2's Joshua Tree, Synchronicity by the Police, Appetite for Destruction, etc"

Yeah but you also witnessed the release of albums by Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Tiffany, Wham! Culture Club, REO Speedwagon, Styx, Cutting Crew, Milli Vanilli, etc. Every decade has its quality and its crap.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 10:18am


"Every song by the Killers sounds the same"

If it works, why fix it? Ever heard of a little band called AC/DC?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 10:20am


"When I was growing up you could turn on the radio and hear great music."

You can still do that, just depends on the radio station ;)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 10:25am


Hey, Mackdown,, bro.

Lady gaga doesn't lip synch, and she plays piano!

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 12:32pm


Mackdown:

I'll admit, I tend to agree w/you in part, regarding the effect of hip-hop, & the lack of heavyweight releases. However, in some of your cases, you may be forgetting that the "magnitude" of the albums in question was not apparent just yet.

You & I overlap in years somewhat (I'm in my mid/late 30's), so I have a clue of where you're coming from. I cannot recall what the initial reaction to "The Wall" was, so I'll not go there. Beyond that, w/the exception of "Thriller", I cannot recall the instantaneous "magnitude" effect for many of them. You're absolutley right in praising "The Joshua Tree" or "Appetite", but I can't recall them being "right-out-the-box" mega-smashes. It took a little bit on GNR's part before folks realized that they weren't really Just Another pop-metal act, & that there was more going on here than met the eye.

Now that I think about it, I can recall very few "instantaneous" albums that hit in such a way. Nirvana's "Nevermind", obviously. GNR's "Use Your Illusion" sets had folks lined up at midnight for a blowout. Pearl Jam's "VS." did the same thing in 93 (I have a friend who was part of the midnight rush on that one). You would know better on "The Wall" & "Synchronicity", so I'd take your word for it.

I guess what I'm getting at is, that sometimes it takes time for something to become apparent. There could be an album released 2 or 3 yrs. ago, that right now could be having a chain reaction effect as we speak.

You are right in that you have to dig for stuff these days, but the tool you are using right now can help in that. You can find a lot of music out there, & YouTube often has some sort of video, if you wish to see the act. I don't know what sort of music you're into, as you've summarily rejected a lot of diff. things in the posts above. If you don't mind, may I toss a few names your way?

Rival Sons / The Raveonettes / The Burning Brides
Silvertide / The Living Things / Band of Skulls
The Soledad Brothers / American Minor / Priestess

I know of a lot more as well. If you want info on tunes, I wrote some stuff on the Journey page recently, regarding a few notable tunes. It's all somewhat hard stuff of varying degrees, but it's all pretty solid, & they're all 2000 & beyond. Give them a listen if you've got a few minutes, & let me know what you think.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 19:25pm


"When I was growing up I witnessed the release of The Wall, Thriller, U2's Joshua Tree, Synchronicity by the Police, Appetite for Destruction, etc. When was the last time a record of that magnitude came out? Music and its artists are disposable and interchangeable these days. This is the great final product from the efforts of the immortal Grand Master Flash, The Beastie Boys, Moby (who I'm sure will get in someday), Public Enemy, etc."

1. Are we talking about worldwide commercial success or artistic success or both? Well, let's see:

-Nevermind
-...And Justice For All (only having it's reputation dragged down because of poor production)
-Rust In Peace (or Countdown To Extinction, doesn't really matter which you choose)
-Badmotorfinger or Superunknown (see above)
-Vulgar Display Of Power (I'd have chosen Cowboys From Hell but you seem to lean towards the commercial side of things)
-The Stone Roses
-Disintegration
-Different Class
-Angel Dust
-Blue Lines
-The Slim Shady LP
-Blood Sugar Sex Magik
-Rage Against The Machine
-Definitely Maybe
-Violator
-Automatic For The People

2. I see where you're coming from with regards to the radio, but you're also wrong with blaming rap for it. See this:

"Rock music is basically dead and the most popular form of music is house/techno garbage from professional lip syncers like Rihanna and Chris Brown."

Neither of them are descendants of rap. You rightly praise Michael Jackson, but Chris Brown is the closest reference point for him, and many other mediocre artists such as Usher. Conclusion: Your boy Michael Jackson is just as responsible for what you call the "death" of music as any rap artist, if not more so. Rihanna cites Madonna as her biggest influence. Same with Lady Gaga, who also name-drops Mr. David Bowie. Does that mean Bowie's responsible for the death of music as well?

Really, your argument is subjective and it could apply to any popular form of music if you wanted it to. 80's rap and hip-hop was filled with forward-thinking people who never wanted to be generic.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 06:33am


Mackdown:

Care to join in on our little Song/Album Project? I ask since you've been on the site for a bit now, & I think you'd be more than welcome to jump in. I posted the basics about it on the "? & the Mysterians" page, addressed to Zach & Sally. Feel free to take a look at it & see if you're interested.

It's a monthly thing, & the next round starts on April 1st. Care to join us?

BTW - Astro - You already know how this works, since you've been here much longer. Even though you've opted before not to jump in, I still wish to extend the courtesy publicly, as you most assuredly deserve it. You know everyone would appreciate you're coming in, if you wish to.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 17:30pm


For what it's worth, when the surviving Small Faces/Faces were interviewed after the induction ceremonies last week, they were asked which overlooked bands should be inducted. Ronnie Wood's only offering - "The Monkees".

Posted by Camille on Wednesday, 04.18.12 @ 14:47pm


Let 'em in!

Posted by Ron on Monday, 05.7.12 @ 19:47pm


I still can't believe the Monkees are not in..
With some of best studio musicians ,there fantastic vocals ,not to ever foget the hit TV show,, They did it all...Inspiration to many
Let' hope they get in..

Posted by Happy on Sunday, 09.16.12 @ 01:51am


The Monkees are so much better than certain inductees it's not even funny. I know you guys are in Cleveland, but come one; you're not that out of touch, are you?! When will these pop legends be inducted? 21 years and counting. Shame!

Posted by S. Adam Bernstein on Sunday, 09.16.12 @ 19:54pm


I think the Rock Hall plans certain things to happen in a certain way. Sometimes they actually use seniority. Neil Diamond, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, The Moody Blues, The Monkees, Kiss and Chicago are the artists that the public complains about the most for not being in the Rock And Roll Halll Of Fame.

Neil Diamond and Alice Cooper are now in. So, the Rock Hall inducts Neil Diamond first in 2011. Neil Diamond wrote and performed the original Kentucky Woman. Kentucky Woman was covered by Deep Purple. Deep Purple is mentioned in Neil Diamond's Rock Hall biography. Deep Purple gets nominated for the Rock Hall two years after Neil Diamond, and Neil Diamond will be mentioned in Deep Purple's Rock Hall bio. Neil Diamond also wrote songs for The Monkees. The Monkees pre-date Deep Purple by three years, but Deep Purple was more Rock than The Monkees, so Deep Purple gets inducted first. The Monkees will be inducted next.

Neil Diamond ---> Deep Purple ---> The Monkees

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 21:03pm


I think the Rock Hall plans certain things to happen in a certain way. Sometimes they actually use seniority. Neil Diamond, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, The Moody Blues, The Monkees, Chicago, Kiss and Rush are the artists that the public complains about the most for not being in the Rock And Roll Halll Of Fame.

Neil Diamond and Alice Cooper are now in. So, the Rock Hall inducts Neil Diamond first in 2011. Neil Diamond wrote and performed the original Kentucky Woman. Kentucky Woman was covered by Deep Purple. Deep Purple is mentioned in Neil Diamond's Rock Hall biography. Deep Purple gets nominated for the Rock Hall two years after Neil Diamond, and Neil Diamond will be mentioned in Deep Purple's Rock Hall bio. Neil Diamond also wrote songs for The Monkees. The Monkees pre-date Deep Purple by three years, but Deep Purple was more Rock than The Monkees, so Deep Purple gets inducted first. The Monkees will be inducted next.

Neil Diamond ---> Deep Purple ---> The Monkees

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 11.4.12 @ 12:07pm


I think the Rock Hall plans certain things to happen in a certain way. Sometimes they actually use seniority. Neil Diamond, Alice Cooper, Genesis, Deep Purple, The Moody Blues, The Monkees, Chicago, Kiss and Rush are the artists that the public complains about the most for not being in the Rock And Roll Halll Of Fame.

Neil Diamond and Alice Cooper are now in. So, the Rock Hall inducts Neil Diamond first in 2011. Neil Diamond wrote and performed the original Kentucky Woman. Kentucky Woman was covered by Deep Purple. Deep Purple is mentioned in Neil Diamond's Rock Hall biography. Deep Purple gets nominated for the Rock Hall two years after Neil Diamond, and Neil Diamond will be mentioned in Deep Purple's Rock Hall bio. Neil Diamond also wrote songs for The Monkees. The Monkees pre-date Deep Purple by three years, but Deep Purple was more Rock than The Monkees, so Deep Purple gets inducted first. The Monkees will be inducted next.

Neil Diamond ---> Deep Purple ---> The Monkees

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.5.13 @ 09:08am


I think the Rock Hall plans certain things to happen in a certain way. Sometimes they actually use seniority. Neil Diamond, Alice Cooper, Genesis, Deep Purple, The Moody Blues, The Monkees, Chicago, Kiss and Rush are the artists that the public complains about the most for not being in the Rock And Roll Halll Of Fame.

Neil Diamond, Alice Cooper and Genesis are now in. So, the Rock Hall inducts Neil Diamond first in 2011. Neil Diamond wrote and performed the original Kentucky Woman. Kentucky Woman was covered by Deep Purple. Deep Purple is mentioned in Neil Diamond's Rock Hall biography. Deep Purple gets nominated for the Rock Hall two years after Neil Diamond, and Neil Diamond will be mentioned in Deep Purple's Rock Hall bio. Neil Diamond also wrote songs for The Monkees. The Monkees pre-date Deep Purple by three years, but Deep Purple was more Rock than The Monkees, so Deep Purple gets inducted first. The Monkees will be inducted next.

Neil Diamond ---> Deep Purple ---> The Monkees

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.5.13 @ 09:11am


Roy, the Monkees will never be elected to the Hall.

Chicago (and even Styx) have much better chances of someday being elected.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 02.6.13 @ 07:23am


Wrong, 2014 will be the year of the Monkees and Deep Purple.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 02.6.13 @ 09:41am


I can't tell if Roy is serious or if he is a track or two short of a full CD. Either way, he should keep his day job.

Posted by Paul on Wednesday, 02.6.13 @ 14:03pm


This website has too many Pauls.

Posted by Paul K on Wednesday, 02.6.13 @ 15:34pm


see this is why you pick nonsense names like me.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.6.13 @ 16:27pm


I was the first Paul! Do generally agree with other Pauls. Although I have seen Roy be right a few times about things.

He's not 100% wrong all the time, just too optimistic (IMO).

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 02.7.13 @ 07:47am


And too prolific. Most of the crap he posts is conjecture or fantasy. Now that Jeanne Dixon is gone, he could take up the slack and write horoscopes for the Enquirer.

Posted by Paul on Thursday, 02.7.13 @ 10:37am


Deep Purple and the Monkees and Kiss on the same ballot next year! You'll see!!

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 03.19.13 @ 02:43am


I hope the Monkees get in SOON

Posted by Happy on Tuesday, 03.19.13 @ 04:25am


There isn't a 60-something rock musician, famous or otherwise, that wouldn't have traded his eye teeth for a chance to be a Monkee, back in 1965 when they did the auditions. The Monkees innovated from here to there and back again. And the fact that they were under contract to tow the line, yet in the end did whatever the heck they wanted to, is the very essence of rock rebellion. I could put together four albums, each featuring ten songs written and performed by each of the Monkees, and then play them for most music lovers, including the most metal-loving stoner, and the verdict would be, more often than not, "Wow - that's some great music! Who is it?" Yes, I see your concerns about opening the door to other fabricated acts. Whatever - it ended up working in this case. Let's make the Monkees the exception that proves the rule: "We do not put fabrications into the Rock Hall, UNLESS they happen to be legitimately good." Finally - it is possible that at least one of them would have made it anyway. Jones was well on his way. Nesmith was writing some great stuff. Tork had some great connections. And Dolenz the pedigree a la Ricky Nelson (ahem). They might all have wound up with a record in the Hot 100.

Posted by Rockhall Gordo on Sunday, 05.5.13 @ 20:52pm


I agree Rockhal
And besides that they were fun to hear and watch on TV

Posted by Happy on Sunday, 05.5.13 @ 23:53pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32zkIOf7U6Y

Assholes at the Rock Hall leave out Davy Jones of the Monkees from the 2013 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame In Memoriam video

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 07.7.13 @ 23:20pm


Roy, Davy Jones was actually in the In Memoriam section from last year's ceremony. He died two months before the 2012 Induction Ceremony. Here is the link from the 2012 ceremony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?1&v=gzOb8fnlDN4

Posted by John R.C. on Sunday, 07.7.13 @ 23:32pm


My bad!

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 07.7.13 @ 23:57pm


I'm not sure if this has been brought up, and it's a little off-topic, but have they ever considered changing the name to "Music Hall of Fame"? With all due respect to the likes of Public Enemy, Beastie Boys, etc. I don't think they qualify as "Rock and Roll". This way, more names that are deserving of such an honor (the name Sinatra comes to mind) could be included without as much argument as people tend to have. Just a random thought.

Posted by CP on Thursday, 07.18.13 @ 15:57pm


(I'm Not Your)Steppin' Stone-Paul Revere & The Raiders May 1966
(The Monkees' version was released six months later)
Stepping Stone-Jimi Hendrix Band Of Gypsys April 1970

(Note: Jimi Hendrix opened for the Monkees on a late '67/early '68 tour)

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Monday, 01.6.14 @ 15:41pm


Contrived, made-for-TV pap. Safe music for people who didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or anyone else making good music at the time. Bubblegum music.

Posted by Ty Stain on Saturday, 01.18.14 @ 10:03am


fun fact: you can enjoy pop AND "intellectual music" at the same time!

(who the fŁck doesn't have the intellectual capacity to enjoy janis joplin, she's not albert ayler or something)

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 01.18.14 @ 11:08am


Kinda surprised to see you defend the Monkees (sorta). As for Joplin, it's not a matter of intellectual capacity, just aural. Her voice just grates on me. If you saw "Across The Universe", it's kind of funny that the Sadie character was supposed to be modeled after Joplin, considering how much like an old crone Joplin sounded like on her songsl

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 01.18.14 @ 13:08pm


It's not even so much defending the Monkees as the fact this idiots acting as if Pop music is inferior to TROO INTELECKTUAL MUSIK (like fairly straightforward blues rock)

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 01.18.14 @ 13:56pm


Pop music isn't inferior in any way, it's just different from rock, in it's conception. I completely agree that you can enjoy "pop" music and "intellectual" music, though I'm not quite sure what the latter is supposed to be.

Most who bash on the Monkees never bother to acknowledge the move towards rock at the end. If they did, it would render their argument moot.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.19.14 @ 06:01am


"I completely agree that you can enjoy "pop" music and "intellectual" music, though I'm not quite sure what the latter is supposed to be. "

Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, apparently.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 01.19.14 @ 13:10pm


Do you think that creates a little bit of a slippery slope too? Granted, you didn't actually say the Monkees should be inducted into the Hall, but you do acknowledge that enjoyment of the Monkees and Jimi Hendrix are not mutually exclusive, which almost gives it a solid footing under "Unquestionable musical excellence" which is supposed to be what will get you inducted. I ask because I think about other pop acts from that era who I think were really good in their craft, even I wouldn't put them in the Hall: the Vogues, Jay And The Americans, the Association, and Gary Lewis And The Playboys, for example. If the capacity to enjoy acts like these runs concurrent with the ability to enjoy Janis, Jimi, or any other "intellectual" music, does that give those other acts a better chance of actual induction, since their music was "excellent" for what it set out to do? Should it mean that? Just food for thought.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.19.14 @ 18:07pm


Tbh, I'm just using the term "Intellectual music" to take the piss out of Ty Stainy (what kinda name is that, anyway?)

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 01.19.14 @ 19:00pm


It's the kind of name that hasn't heard about the awesome power of Clorox 2 for colors! If you need to take the piss out of your Ty, get that awful Stainy out with Clorox 2. Tough on stains, gentle on colors. In the bleach aisle.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 01.19.14 @ 21:19pm



I'm glad they paid tribute to MARV TARPLIN, one of the original members of Motown's First Group...THE MIRACLES .

Posted by Bill G on Monday, 01.20.14 @ 14:05pm


It kills me that The Monkees have not been considered. I mean Hell, Janis Joplin was inducted. Janis Joplin proved 3 things to the world. 1. You don't have to be attractive. 2. You dint have to have a good singing voice. And 3. You don't need to have any musical talent whatsoever to be a rock star. And they want to railroad The Monkees???

Posted by Rich on Friday, 02.21.14 @ 23:44pm


"1. You don't have to be attractive."

You're right, you don't Because looks do not = musical talent.

"3. You don't need to have any musical talent whatsoever to be a rock star."

You do realise that the Monkees didn't even play on some of their best stuff, right?

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 02.22.14 @ 10:18am


The Monkees should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame period!
Linda Ronstadt is going to be admitted and one of her biggest hits "Different Drum" was written by none other than Michael Nesmith a Monkee!
They were the first band to use a Moog Syntesizer and Mickey Dolenz bought the 3rd one sold.
They are the only artists to outsell the Beatles and Stones in one year.
They were the first group to put video and music together, thanks Mr. Nesmith!
Their songs are covered by at least one artist every single year!
Enough is Enough, put the Monkees in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!
It probably wasn't a heart attack that killed Davy Jones, it was probably a broken heart from not being admitted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame! Madonna? Run DMC? The Beastie Boys? But not the Monkees? Give me a break!
I mean Jimi Hendrix opened for them?
What should that tell you?

Posted by Reginald Craig on Friday, 03.28.14 @ 14:03pm


"I mean Jimi Hendrix opened for them?
What should that tell you?"

It tells me what I think everyone really knows deep down. The little girls boo'd Hendrix off the stage because they were screaming for the boy band created by and for TV. Thankfully for the boys, the screaming helped drown out the fact that they sounded dreadful live.

Hendrix has been in the hall of fame for 22 years. The Monkees have never and will never be nominated. What should that tell you?

Posted by Jack on Monday, 11.24.14 @ 23:18pm


It should be noted that [1] many great popular music artists did not play their own music (e.g. Simon & Garfunkel, the Mamas and Papa, anyone from Motown or Stax, etc) and [2] the Monkees actually did play on their albums starting with "Headquarters" (1967).

Posted by RM2 on Monday, 12.1.14 @ 16:11pm


http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnnyr6/debunking-every-excuse-for-keeping-the-monkees-out-arl4#.muWRzY9gy

Debunking Every Excuse For Keeping The Monkees Out Of The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame

Every induction ceremony just reminds us that The Monkees deserved to be in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame from day one. Some folks have argued against it. Their arguments donít hold up. Even against many of the legends already inducted.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 04.27.15 @ 23:42pm


http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnnyr6/debunking-every-excuse-for-keeping-the-monkees-out-arl4#.muWRzY9gy

Debunking Every Excuse For Keeping The Monkees Out Of The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame

Every induction ceremony just reminds us that The Monkees deserved to be in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame from day one. Some folks have argued against it. Their arguments donít hold up. Even against many of the legends already inducted.

1. They Didnít Play Their Own Instruments
2. They Didnít Write Their Own Songs
3. They Were Puppets
4. They Were A Manufactured Band
5. The TV Show Mattered More Than The Music
6. They Were Just Actors
7. They Werenít Counterculture
8. They Were Cheap Beatles Knock-Offs
9. They Werenít Very Rock & Roll
10. They Werenít Influential

Posted by Roy on Monday, 04.27.15 @ 23:45pm


Roy, that article didn't debunk my 'excuse' (that I have written out here somewhere, but evidently on another page than this):

Given all the help they had (Network publicity, top notch song writers, etc.), they should have been bigger than they were. Why did they flame out after only 2 or 3 years?

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 04.28.15 @ 07:23am


THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART

THE MONKEES

01. 1966 - # 1 - The Monkees
02. 1967 - # 1 - More Of The Monkees
03. 1967 - # 1 - Headquarters
04. 1967 - # 1 - Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd.
05. 1968 - # 3 - The Birds, The Bees & The Monkees
06. 1968 - # 45 - Head
07. 1969 - # 32 - Instant Replay
08. 1969 - # 89 - The Monkees Greatest Hits
09. 1969 - # 100 - The Monkees Present
10. 1970 - # 152 - Changes
11. 1971 - # 207 - Barrel Full Of Monkees
12. 1976 - # 58 - The Monkees Greatest Hits
13. 1986 - # 21 - Then & Now... The Best Of The Monkees
14. 1987 - # 72 - Pool It!
15. 2003 - # 20 - The Best Of The Monkees

THE BILLBOARD 100 SINGLES CHART

THE MONKEES

01. 1966 - # 1 - Last Train To Clarksville
02. 1966 - # 1 - I'm A Believer
03. 1966 - # 20 - (I'm Not Your Steppin' Stone)
04. 1967 - # 2 - A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You
05. 1967 - # 39 - The Girl I Knew Somewhere
06. 1967 - # 3 - Pleasant Valley Sunday
07. 1967 - # 11 - Words
08. 1967 - # 1 - Daydream Believer
09. 1967 - # 104 - Goin' Down
10. 1968 - # 3 - Valleri
11. 1968 - # 34 - Tapioca Tundra
12. 1968 - # 19 - D.W. Washburn
13. 1968 - # 51 - It's Nice To Be With You
14. 1968 - # 62 - Porpoise Song
15. 1968 - # 106 - As We Go Along
16. 1969 - # 56 - Tear Drop City
17. 1969 - # 63 - Listen To The Band
18. 1969 - # 81 - Someday Man
19. 1969 - # 82 - Good Clean Fun
20. 1969 - # 109 - Mommy And Daddy
21. 1970 - # 98 - Oh My My
22. 1986 - # 20 - That Was Then, This Is Now
23. 1986 - # 79 - Daydream Believer (Remix)
24. 1987 - # 87 - Heart And Soul

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 04.29.15 @ 08:32am


Roy, just for fun, do that same aggregating on Styx. Would be interesting to see how they compare. I say this, as Styx is more a 'normal' rock/pop band. Came up thru the ranks, no help from Networks, etc.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 04.29.15 @ 14:42pm


What a freakin' embarrassment. No. Give me Deep Purple, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden!

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 07.25.15 @ 22:26pm


Of course the Monkees should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. After watching the documentary "The Wrecking Crew", every band in the sixties was guilty of using studio musicians. To keep out The Monkees because they didn't play their instruments is kind of a non issue. Plus the Monkees have one of the biggest music catalogs of any band during that period with music that still sounds great.

Posted by Rick Orta on Saturday, 10.17.15 @ 16:56pm


THE MONKEES

THE BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS CHART

01. 1966 - # 1 - The Monkees
02. 1967 - # 1 - More Of The Monkees
03. 1967 - # 1 - Headquarters
04. 1967 - # 1 - Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd.
05. 1968 - # 3 - The Birds, The Bees & The Monkees
06. 1968 - # 45 - Head
07. 1969 - # 32 - Instant Replay
08. 1969 - # 89 - The Monkees Greatest Hits
09. 1969 - # 100 - The Monkees Present
10. 1970 - # 152 - Changes
11. 1971 - # 207 - Barrel Full Of Monkees
12. 1976 - # 58 - The Monkees Greatest Hits
13. 1986 - # 21 - Then & Now... The Best Of The Monkees
14. 1987 - # 72 - Pool It!
15. 2003 - # 20 - The Best Of The Monkees

THE BILLBOARD 100 SINGLES CHART

01. 1966 - # 1 - Last Train To Clarksville
02. 1966 - # 1 - I'm A Believer
03. 1966 - # 20 - (I'm Not Your Steppin' Stone)
04. 1967 - # 2 - A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You
05. 1967 - # 39 - The Girl I Knew Somewhere
06. 1967 - # 3 - Pleasant Valley Sunday
07. 1967 - # 11 - Words
08. 1967 - # 1 - Daydream Believer
09. 1968 - # 3 - Valleri
10. 1968 - # 34 - Tapioca Tundra
11. 1968 - # 19 - D.W. Washburn
12. 1968 - # 51 - It's Nice To Be With You
13. 1968 - # 62 - Porpoise Song
14. 1969 - # 56 - Tear Drop City
15. 1969 - # 63 - Listen To The Band
16. 1969 - # 81 - Someday Man
17. 1969 - # 82 - Good Clean Fun
18. 1970 - # 98 - Oh My My
19. 1986 - # 20 - That Was Then, This Is Now
20. 1986 - # 79 - Daydream Believer (Remix)
21. 1987 - # 87 - Heart And Soul

THE BILLBOARD BUBBLING UNDER 100 CHART

01. 1967 - # 104 - Goin' Down
02. 1968 - # 106 - As We Go Along
03. 1969 - # 109 - Mommy And Daddy

Posted by Roy on Friday, 11.20.15 @ 12:55pm


So I see where the Monkees are touring again?! Mikey won't be with them, so let's just call it a 'half-@$$ed' tour. With Davy gone, I honestly don't know how they can pull this off. Maybe they are just trying to get the NomCom to notice them for 2017? After all, it is their 50th anniversary this year

Posted by Jason Voigt on Monday, 02.15.16 @ 22:09pm


The Monkees are not in but their producer Don Kirshner is? That ain't right.

Posted by WILLIAM TELL on Sunday, 03.13.16 @ 20:33pm


If the Monkees get inducted, then The Cowsills should get in too! Actually, the Cowsills should get in before the Monkees.

Posted by Tom NJ on Monday, 04.25.16 @ 16:21pm


The facts don't lie....

The main reason why the Monkees are not in Hall of Fame is Jann Wenner personal snubbing is point blank.

The nomination committee consists of corporate music executives and music critics who always been pain in ass of every performer from Elvis to Beyoncť. They do not listen to no criticism that performers and inductees should have a vote every year of their own peers to be inducted. The Monkees should already be inducted by a special committee of historical basis instead of closed secret group. They were the precursor of pre fabricated musical groups of the 80's such as The New Kids on The Block and N'Sync.

Posted by Erayman64 on Wednesday, 05.4.16 @ 01:45am


Following up to my comment from nearly 4 months ago, the Monkees now have a new album out, with one track with vintage Davy vocals. So far I've heard nothing but good reviews from it. I have yet to hear it, so I can't judge. What does this mean? I don't know, maybe they're trying to get respect from Jann Wenner

Posted by Jason Voigt on Friday, 06.3.16 @ 13:03pm


I'm sure there are many people that will be upset with the discussion of the Monkees eligibility. But I'm for it. So I'll enjoy your hissing lol.

First of all, many people in the 60s were guilty of it, and for many reasons, some sound pretty bad and some do not. But whether pride makes you not say that the Monkees were really a great sound, you shouldn't even be criticizing because these discussion pages are not worth having you on. We should have fair critics. Hit me I'm ready for it.

But I like to think of the Monkees as a great musical project, the early stuff, as we are told the later stuff, they were actually playing on and they were GREAT! The great musical moments captured were great! But think about this. Early stuff also incredible, and I'm sure there was some influence SOMEWHERE in a great amount of people down the line later in time. Dave Clark Five gave GREAT stuff, but the whole thing was a GREAT idea filled with great musicians! Not most of the same musicians you see in the band! It was a loooooot of people that were involved. And Ron Ryan had that idea and the rest of the folks continued that idea with his help, and tried so even afterwards when he was cut off by a greedy sob. But look at the influence they gave! Bruce Springsteen and his guitarist! His band! Max Weinberg! Gene Simmons! A little bit of Stevie Wonder! Monkees were not as heavy, but you cannot tell me their music didn't sound GREAT! There was talented sound mixing probably all in there and everything! The best of the best was there! That's why it was a PROJECT! (Then later Nesmith, Dolenz, Jones, and Tork were able to come in and make the best of what they could do, which was also GREAT!) Great music from them!

Now, as George Carlin once said, the upper rich class in the private clubs that nobody knows about that maybe top CEOS will go to, they don't give a rat's behind about you. Same goes with the Rock Hall. These are big people that discuss things privately on who will go in. There's some snubbing. They don't give a rat's behind. They are just there for money. It also disturbs me with how Dave Clark and his band came in, with also the documentary coming soon right after, and the book. Those who know Dave's reputation will know exactly what I'm talking about. Anyways, what the Sex Pistols said was right. They are a stain. And plus things are way overpriced there. Wonder why? Losing money? Hmm. Anyways, there should be a website or blog that has the artists put in democratically. And this is not going to be artists who were a major influence on rock n roll ONLY recognized by the USA. This is going to be ALL of rock n roll. That's right. T. Rex as huge of an influence as they were, should be in. (If you disagree, please look them up a little more and their wiki page.) But somebody should be in charge of this website who is fair and democratic and is not stuck in his freaking views. All the bands we are talking about should be put in.

Posted by Carlos Bosso on Saturday, 06.11.16 @ 23:07pm


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-monkees-our-life-in-15-songs-w435214/that-was-then-this-is-now-1986-w435273

The Monkees: Our Life in 15 Songs
Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork tell the stories behind some of their most enduring tunes

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 08.28.16 @ 21:08pm


guess who's back? that's right! theAMZINGcool has made another TRIUMPHANT RETURN !!!

Posted by theAMAZINGcool on Wednesday, 11.2.16 @ 14:46pm


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.