Vanilla Fudge

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1992 (The 1993 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
You Keep Me Hanging On (1967)

Vanilla Fudge @ Wikipedia

Vanilla Fudge Videos

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

Comments

60 comments so far (post your own)

Vanilla Fudge is a powerhouse and of pure Rock talent. They were important to the development of Hard Rock/Heavy Metal, Psychedelic Rock, and Power Rock, in the late 60/early 70s. They're hard rocking covers ("Shotgun", "You Keep Me Hangin On") have become staples of FM radio, not to mention their drummer Carime Appice is one of The Most influential hard rock drummers ever.

Posted by Jonny on Sunday, 03.1.09 @ 18:37pm


Vanilla Fudge is a powerhouse and of pure Rock talent. They were important to the development of Hard Rock/Heavy Metal, Psychedelic Rock, and Power Rock, in the late 60/early 70s. They're hard rocking covers ("Shotgun", "You Keep Me Hangin On") have become staples of FM radio, not to mention their drummer Carime Appice is one of The Most influential hard rock drummers ever.

Posted by Jonny on Sunday, 03.1.09 @ 18:37pm


Not a bad band of musician.. I would say Tim Borgart
the bass player .. is the true talent in the band.
That guy can play..



Posted by mrxyz on Monday, 03.2.09 @ 08:40am


Tim Borgat one of Rocks best bass players!!
Yes

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 05.27.09 @ 00:24am


Tim Borgat one of Rocks best bass players!!
Yes

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 05.27.09 @ 00:24am

I ment Tim Borgart...lol From funk to blues he is da man,,,

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 05.27.09 @ 00:26am


You do know his name is spelt Tim Bogert? Notice the e.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 05.27.09 @ 11:22am


They will never get in, but they were a great group and thier cover of "You Keep Me Hangin' On" is a classic. Tim Bogert and Carmine Appice have both gone on to have very successful careers.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 08.17.09 @ 17:31pm


Influential and a noteworthy band, but they fall short of Hall-worthiness. Kind of a poor-man's, American Cream. Cream, BTW, seem to be somewhat overrated on this site.

Posted by Chalkie on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 15:50pm


Chalkie, in what way do you find Cream overrated on this site? Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I don't really see people continually praising Cream on here.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 15:53pm


Just curious.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 15:53pm


Well one example off the top of my head: Cream is ranked 45th in the "Rock rankings", ahead of such luminaries as Otis Redding, Radiohead, the Band, Jerry Lee Lewis and many others that deserve to be ranked ahead of them. Cream had influence (especially on the Hard-rock/Heavy metal genres) and a few hits and obviously were a supergroup of virtuoso musicians that attained SOME sort of artistic achievement besides simply existing together. This alone should be enough to get them into the Hall and establish them as canon, but other than that I just don't see why they should be ranked so high or even be first-ballot no-brainers. They never reached their full potential on record, failing to release a true masterwork (the only thing that comes close to this is 'Disraeli Gears') and they only lasted roughly two years before dissolving. It's my belief that it's simply a "rockist" perspective which gives them such a lofty status on this site. Seriously folks, kill your idols.

Posted by Chalkie on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 16:12pm


"Cream is ranked 45th in the "Rock rankings", ahead of such luminaries as Otis Redding, Radiohead, the Band, Jerry Lee Lewis and many others"

I agree with you that Jerry Lee Lewis is ranked too low to just mention one of those names. As much as I think RS' "Immortals" lists are for the most part, ridiculous, it is worth mentioning that Cream is ranked #66 and #67 on the two lists. VH1's lists rank Cream at #52 and #61 respectively. Since all four of these lists are posted on here, my guess is that voters partaking in the Rankings project may have utilized these as a resource in compiling their own lists. Hence Cream's high ranking.

"They never reached their full potential on record,"

A bit of speculation there, but supergroups rarely do. Have you listened to the Law or the Firm just to name two? (Not picking on Paul Rodgers, these are just the first two that came to mind)

"They only lasted roughly two years before dissolving."

Maybe. But let's not forget the Beatles "only" lasted about a decade whereas Def Leppard have lasted over 3 decades so far (don't mean to pick on DL, but see where I'm going with this?)

"kill your idols."

Been reading up on Jim DeRogatis too?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 16:31pm


If were talking about bands on here that are overrated then we gotta talk about Green Day. Those buggers got more songs inducted than Queen AND The Who if I remember correctly.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 16:53pm


Yeah, no kidding. Green Day also have more songs inducted in that project than the Kinks too.

Not to mention Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, James Brown, Johnny Cash....

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 17:10pm


Pobably goes without saying that I agree with both of you. STP is also way overvalued around here. They were actually a bit of a laughingstock with most people back in the 90's. Not a band that was taken seriously by most.

Posted by DarinRG on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 17:46pm


I have to completely agree with Jerry Lee Lewis being ranked far too low. If he memory serves me correctly, he barely even got inducted in the round he made it into.

I think that Cream is a tad overrated on the Rankings list, but only by maybe 15-20 spots as Tahvo said.

I think that the reason some of the older bands got shafted in the song project was because of rule changes that took place midway through the project. Because fewer songs could get inducted in the early years, the backlog for those years got way too large and never really recovered. I think that the absence of nominations early on also hurt things a bit too, because there was just too much variation in what people were voting for. Not to mention the fact that we ignored certain genres far too much (country, some alternative genres), which really became apparent when I was doing research for the genre round. Personally, I also think we inducted too many songs from the 2000's but that's totally just my opinion.

I think that STP was definitely overrated in the album project (I personally would not have voted for more than one album, if that), but their induction into the Projected project and them getting 4-5 songs is about right in my opinion. They started off as a grunge ripoff and a bit of a laughingstock, but history has been kind to them, much like it has to many other bands.

Green Day probably has a couple too many songs, but you have to always remember that the song project is inherently going to favour singles bands. I think that if the most deserving Queen and Who songs were nominated then they would have likely gotten more songs inducted. Crazy Little Thing Called Love and Magic Bus are in my opinion the biggest omissions for these bands, and they never got brought forward.

Maybe grunge gets a bit overrated on here, but as far as I'm concerned it should be. It was the most significant movement in the past 20 years of music, and shouldn't be criticized simply because it was popular. The reason I like the genre, (and other early 90's alternative bands like Faith No More, the RHCP, Smashing Pumpkins, RATM, etc.) is that these bands all featured members that could play the shit out of their instruments, they all put out multiple solid albums (which is rare these days) and on top of that they just happened to be popular with the mainstream, which contrary to what some people on here think is not always a horrible thing and doesn't make a band "worse".

I think if any genre on here gets overrated, it's indy rock. That genre for me is what hair metal is to a lot of others on here. I can't wait for another genre to push it aside, because I find it to be incredibly boring, repetitive and mostly devoid of catchiness. I find the dreariness and understated tone that songs of this genre typically have to be just too much. Although based on how much critics and most people on here love it, I probably just don't "get it".

Posted by BSLO on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 19:13pm


Agreed completely on the Indie Rock thing BSLO. One of the main reasons rock took such a backseat to pop and rap in the 2000s had to do with the supposed Indie Rock revolution of the 2000s just not panning out.

Logically, it should've been the next progression. Grunge was replaced by Post-Grunge, and the latter was beginning to die down as well. That was the chance for Indie to take over. But for whatever reason (I attribute it to their strange hatred of putting hooks in their music) it just didn't catch fire and rock was stuck with another group of Post-Grunge bands, most of whom aren't exactly aren't brimming with songwriting talent.?To put it in perspective, it's equivalent to what wouldve happend if Grunge came around in the early 90s and wasn't able to take Hair Metal and the latter genre continued even though people were sick of it.

With that being said, I think a new movement is due in a few years that's going to push both Indie Rock and Post-Grunge aside.

Posted by Jim on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 19:52pm


First of all, "Indie" isn't a genre. Secondly, "Indie" has existed since at least the 70's, and with the internet and ever-cheapening recording methods, it doesn't look like it's going to die any time soon.

Posted by Chalkie on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 21:29pm


Sorry Vanilla Fudge, dont reely have a strong opinion 'bout this group. Just want ta say Chalkie is correct that Indie is not a genre. If someone thinks Indie is a genre, you are painfully uninformed. Stop, go back to Start.

Posted by Cokey on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 00:03am


Alright then, we'll call it the indie rock movement or the indie rock style or the whatever catch-all term is used for indie rock. I'm well aware that it derives from the word "independent" which technically could describe any band from any genre that is not signed to a record label. I am sorry I misspelled the term in my original post. I wasn't meaning to refer to music being played at an open-wheel car race :). I am sure you knew what I meant.

Either way, you are probably right. It probably isn't going anywhere, and that's too bad. I think that Jim nailed it on the head when he said that indie rock bands seem to hate putting hooks into their music. I have tried sevral times to get into indie rock at the advice of friends, and most songs I hear go the same way...they start off decent, then go nowhere, and at the finish I find myself going "that song was okay" but nothing else. That's just my opinion, I'm sure there are countless others that don't agree, but indie rock just does nothing for me. I don't understand why it gets hailed as the best thing out there right now.

Posted by BSLO on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 00:40am


Sorry for invading your page Vanilla Fudge. You were a solid band in the late 60's, but I'd have to say that you are probably not hall-worthy.

Posted by BSLO on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 00:58am


Wow, I actually had no idea there were as many people on here who felt the same way about Indie as me.

First of all, I have to go back to what Chalkie said. Indie has been around since the 70's. I greatly enjoy most of the Indie movement up until about 2000. It's the recent turn of the movement that has gotten to me. Since I'm in my early 20's, most of my friends are into it. I remember a friend of mine tried to get me into Florence + The Machine and the National, all I could think while listening to them was "ugh, can we put on the Specials, or Steve Earle, or the Platters or Prince Buster or Solomon Burke or something. Something, anything that has a soul." That's what I think is the main issue with the recent indie movement, it is simply devoid of a soul. There's no pleasure in it. Nothing uplifting at all. Listen to a recent indie song and then any doo-wop or early rock and roll song next to each other and you'll see what I mean

Take Florence + The Machine for example. Clearly directly influenced by Kate Bush and Bjork, yet Kate Bush and even Bjork as out there as she is have that "soul essence" (sounds pretentious, I know, but I honestly don't know what else to call it) that is absent in Florence + The Machine. Then there's the National, the first song I ever heard by them was "Terrible Love," it started off good but then it quickly went nowhere fast. This is my main issue with the band Grizzly Bear, clearly talented but all the songs are just a dead-end.

Maybe I just don't get it. But it's not just indie, it's also grunge. People can listen to Nirvana all they want (and yes they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame) but I'll take Fats Domino over Kurt Cobain's mindless whining any day, thank you very much.

For me, "Blue Moon" by the Marcels is more enjoyable to listen to than anything concocted by Pearl Jam. Maybe it's just me.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 04:52am


Also, sorry Vanilla Fudge. Didn't mean to shove Florence + The Machine down your throats like that. I know it must be very traumatizing but you should have seen my face when I first heard "Dog Days Are Over" !!

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 04:58am


"Maybe its just me." ~ Tahvo Parvianen
------—---------------------------------------------
Its all about personal perspective, influences, environment, etc. But of course there are also musicians that just plain & simple dont make the grade. Indie rockers almost by definition dont make the grade, but even I (an oldster) find some worthwhile stuff now and again -- but dont ask me for any names, I dont follow them. People your age (20s) I often hear similar refrain. The music has not "died" (Don McLean), it never dies. The Cream (supergroups) will rise, and the dross (crap) will be taken out.

Sorry once again V.F. for the foray on your page.

Posted by Cokey on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 09:57am


Give me Florence And The Machine over fats domino anyday, I just get bored listening to the guy.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 12:01pm


Really? Now that's interesting!

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 12:04pm


Yeah, maybe it's an age thing but I get bored listening to him, same with jazz and doo wop.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 12:23pm


Sorry, but to me, "indie" is a genre. I know that's not technically correct, but in terms of promotions and exhibition, it might as well be. Especially "indie rock". I've said it here before: I found a lot of great songs and some really good groups in my time in college radio in the early 2000's, but I got burnt out on it. I just didn't move me at all. I don't hate F+tM, though the only song I know by them is Dog Days, but when I hear about indie bands breaking through, they always put the perspective of "in spite of the average listener's lack of intelligence". I have little use for dismissive, hateful attitudes for music. Besides which, even that attitude is a facade. To use another example: I read a piece about the success of Adele's "Rolling In The Deep", another artist with a seemingly "indie" sound (though how long that lasts is anyone's guess). The record company heard that song and crafted that image based on how they would release and promote that record. It was the bigwigs' decision to promote her as they did, breaking her first into alternative circles, then CHR, even R&B and AC. It's almost never the David slaying the Goliath as they try to make it appear. It's a veneer.

GFW, I noticed you don't have much personal taste for soul/R&B at all. Is that a correct assessment? At one point I thought you were just disenchanted with the Hall's love affair with it following Sledge's induction, but I really get the impression that you pretty much have no use for R&B (other than possibly rap). To me, that's kind of sad. I don't mind indie/undie/alternative, but like you with Fats, I get bored because it has no soul, no joy, no love. Btw, also my problem with 80's new-wave rip-off synth pop like Tears For Fears, Thompson Twins, Simple Minds, New Order, etc. It doesn't speak to the kind of pain in one's life that is allowed to hurt openly--rather than turning to either calloused emotionlessness or into rage at somebody or something else--that also allows for the open celebration of life. That's why I'm SO turned off my Smashing Pumpkins. I refuse to live my life with the philosophy that "the world is a vampire" and that infinite sadness is the way it has to be.

I'm just kind of disappointed that we let our viewpoints jade the Revisited/Projected project so heavily, claiming that once eligible, Krautrock, industrial and punk were greater and more important steps in the evolution of rock'n'roll than doo-wop, soul, and 50's R&B.

I don't wanna bore you too much, so I'll stop here, but I was also planning to address this topic on my Rock Hall Monitors blog, and I'll go somewhat into more detail there. But yeah, I'll take Flo, and even MGMT, but not RHCP, but I'll take Fats, Buddy, doo-wop, Stax/Volt, and Philly soul in even greater helpings.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 13:41pm


"I'm just kind of disappointed that we let our viewpoints jade the Revisited/Projected project so heavily, claiming that once eligible, Krautrock, industrial and punk were greater and more important steps in the evolution of rock'n'roll than doo-wop, soul, and 50's R&B."

This is a grievance that never ceases to baffle me, Philip. I'm not sure that anyone has ever said that "Krautrock" (a term I loathe, and not necessarily because of its political incorrectness) or Punk are greater and/or more important than Doo-wop, Soul, and/or 50's R&B. However, first tier artists of the former (Kraftwerk, Can, the Ramones, the Clash) ARE greater/more important than second and third tier artists of the latter.

Posted by Chalkie on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 15:11pm


At least, that's the way I feel.

Posted by Chalkie on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 15:15pm


I'd honestly say Kraftwerk are more important than any of those artists just because of how they practically helped ivnent a genre.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 15:30pm


Chalkie, I think the problem is we're disagreeing about what constitutes first and second tier then. I'm not saying the Clash and the Ramones aren't more important than the Five Satins or Five Keys, but what tier of doo-wop do you place the Moonglows or Flamingos, or even the Diamonds or Danny And The Juniors? What tier of soul do you place the Dells? Does doo-wop even have a first tier, in your opinion?

One problem I've perceived is that we tend to place such a heavier emphasis on album-driven bands than singles ones. I'm not saying let's not give credit to them, but it's apples and oranges when you consider the paradigms of the music industry at those very different points of time. Doesn't make one era better than the other. But as far as tiers go, I think we picked prog clean down to the bone, and pretty much did that with punk, too. IMO, I would say Misfits, Dead Kennedys and Buzzcocks all are second or maybe even third-tier artists. But others here disagree.

Admittedly, I think Krautrock is too fringe for me to give serious consideration as to what constitutes "first-tier", except for Kraftwerk, but that's because Kraftwerk truly did transcend their genre.

GFW, Clyde McPhatter was also a huge part of practically inventing the genre. As I've said, if any one person can lay claim to the title of "Father of Rock'n'Roll", I truly believe that Clyde's credentials stand up the best to back that claim up. A Drifter, a Domino, and a solo artist all making waves in the R&B scene, and encroaching on the pop scene all before Rock Around The Clock came out.... that speaks oceans about his deservability, but when it came time to placing him in the Revisited project, people didn't want to do it because he "was just a singer". That truly baffles me, how a man could be so heavily involved with making it all happen, and not be called worthy because he didn't sling an axe or pack the case.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 15:43pm


"I'm just kind of disappointed that we let our viewpoints jade the Revisited/Projected project so heavily, claiming that once eligible, Krautrock, industrial and punk were greater and more important steps in the evolution of rock'n'roll than doo-wop, soul, and 50's R&B."

Philip, Industrial might not be one of the best examples to use to make this case. We've only inducted Nine Inch Nails, who were really the final bookend on the genre, and while they were the most commercially successful, did little to develop or define industrial music.

When we did the Song Project genre voting it exposed how little a good chunk of the group know or care about industrial, and many couldn't be bothered to do five minutes of research on the subject.

So, the complaints that you have about doo-wop are the same I have about industrial - many important acts are going unrecognized because too many people in the project are unwilling to check their blind spots.

Posted by DarinRG on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 16:23pm


Very interesting take on everything here, in re: "indie", "oldies", & Vanilla Fudge.

First off: Fudge were solid rockers who get little respect cause Cream, Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, etc. were all in the same space at the same time. When Zeppelin came in, you knew someone was going to take a fall. It's a pity Fudge hasn't been remembered as well.

I love the idea that everybody's whining about... well, whining. May I remind you all of some famous whiners of the past:

Shirley & Lee
The Four Seasons - whining at it's best
The Beatles - yes, they had a sappy side as well
Led Zeppelin - some folks to this day can't take Plants vocals
B. Dylan - Nasal division
The Entire Singer-Songwriter movement of the 1970's - nuff said
Certain pop-metal acts of the 1980's - anyone who felt the need to scream something along the lines of "aaaaaeeee!!!!!" to get their point across.

Let me just say this: If, in all of your infinite wisdom, any of you who've sat there yelling that everybody bought into the "whining", then guess what - You All Deserve To Be Fooled. 9/10ths of the people I knew just knew the music was infinitely superior as rock to the music of the recent past (i.e. the 80's).

How can I say this? Well, I was there in the 80's as well. First albums I ever bought were pop-metal, back in 86 (Ozzy's "The Ultimate Sin" & Dokken's "Under Lock and Key"). I did the breakdancing circa 83/84, tried metal later on, & wathced my firends all rush to hip-hop when they saw how boring rock was getting.

If anything, there was acres of soul in that music. That period from about 1991-1997 was the only genuine rock period of the past 30 yrs. at least. The entire period was an affirmation of life, if only because it was genuine.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 16:43pm


I don't really see how clyde mcphatter is the dad of R&R, I always considered chuck berry it.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 16:52pm


I endorse Darin's comment about Nine Inch Nails. Shame they get lauded when they did so little to develop industrial, though they did perpetuate it. (Well, duh, if you're playing it, that's perpetuation).

Also, Cheesecrop, enjoyed your post about whining. I think the Bee Gees and the Beach Boys also spent some time with that just to add some names to your list.

Regarding the Father of Rock 'n Roll, I don't see it as a problem viewing Clyde McPhatter or Chuck Berry, but let's not forget about Ike Turner and "Rocket 88"

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 17:00pm


"When we did the Song Project genre voting it exposed how little a good chunk of the group know or care about industrial, and many couldn't be bothered to do five minutes of research on the subject." - DarinRG

This is part of the reason I think the song project is full of holes. Don't necessarily just mean industrial here, but different genres in general. However, a project of that magnitude is very unlikely to please everybody.

"I think the problem is we're disagreeing about what constitutes first and second tier then."

This is the main reason I always shake my head when people bring up the "tiers" argument. How do you gauge what's 1st, 2nd and 3rd?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 17:04pm


GFW, I'd put Clyde ahead of Chuck because like Rock Around The Clock, Clyde already had his three hall-worthy careers (only two of them inducted so far) in full motion by the time Chuck got off the ground with Maybelline. Clyde goes just as far back as Ike's Rocket 88.

Anyway, Cheese, nice post, I'm not saying there isn't whining and that it doesn't belong. I'm not totally sold on the soul part, but if nothing else, I think I made it clear that I'm not into the kind of "soul" where the reaction to pain is either callousness or anger/rage.

BTW, how can you forget "Prince of Wails" Gene Pitney?

Posted by Philip on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 17:31pm


I stil stand by Berry because he baasically helped invent the rock style of guitar playing.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 18:15pm


That's understandable. My only issue with that is that it only further propagates the "RAWK!" crowd's argument that rock'n'roll is defined primarily, if not solely, but how wicked the guitar licks are. Genres of music are more accurately defined by rhythmic structures and overall compositional layouts. I think in that regard, perhaps, Clyde has the potential edge there.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 11.26.11 @ 12:35pm


*by how, not but how, sorry.

And I'm not disputing the guitar's importance to rock music, nor am I denying the history of blues music that involved guitar, I just want to make sure that the myopia doesn't become paradigm. Am I making sense?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 11.26.11 @ 12:39pm


Yeah, but I picked him because... well the guitar is the primary instrument, isn't it.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 11.26.11 @ 14:44pm


Rap ain't a part of rock, it's its own seperate genre.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 06:18am


Re: "Rap aint a part of rock."
Think that argument is now moot (meaningless) since rap artists are now routinely put on the RHoF ballots.

Re: Chuck Berry - he will never be dethroned by Clyde McPhatter, you might as well end that argument also. The one constant of the RHoF, if there is one, the guitar is king. And Chuck Berry epitomized that instrument.

Posted by Cokey on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 09:56am


I'm not convinced Chuck Berry epitomizes the guitar. It's too bad Gitarzan doesn't post here anymore as he'd tell what he thought about Chuck Berry's skills as a guitarist.

Why I mention Gitarzan is that he played the guitar for over 40 years and is thus undoubtedly one of the more knowledgeable on the instrument around here. Not trying to put anybody down, just haven't heard of anyone posting here recently who claim to be an avid guitar player (are you Cokey?)

(I don't play the guitar, BTW)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 10:17am


That should be "tell you"

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 10:18am


Tahvo, I myself am only a hacker on guitar. Have a brother who is quite good, does that count? (hehe) I dont say Berry was a guitar "god" (I wonder where he is at on the R.S. survey? Roy, a little help please.) but he could play well and he was the consumate performer. Let me add, he had reach -- he reached the masses just like Elvis did. If Elvis was "king" guess you might give Chuck Berry some similar accolade?

Posted by Cokey on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 11:18am


The rnrhof name is wrong anyway, it's a popular music hall.

I see rap and soul different from rock because they don't share the same style or origins.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 11:50am


Also about Berry's skills: Of course he's not the king of guitar, there are tons of people more qualified then him, but out of the rock and roll guys he's certainly the best. (by the way, I consider rock and roll a genre only from 1954-1964 after that it pretty much turned into rock)

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 11:53am


I don't know if they reissued the list at some point, but doing some quick browsing Bo Diddley appears to be #6, ahead of Chuck Berry at #7. Anyway, last time I checked the list in question didn't have Eddie Lang, Django Reinhardt, Al Di Meola, Gary Moore, Allan Holdsworth or Rory Gallagher who are all guitar Gods, so I wouldn't take Rolling Stone Magazine's list (or ANY of their lists for that matter) too seriously. There were a few other guitar Gods missing from the original list but I can't remember their names.

R.S. is best taken with a grain of salt.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 11:56am


"I consider rock and roll a genre only from 1954-1964 after that it pretty much turned into rock)" - GFW

The way I like to look at it is this: "Rock, short for rock and roll" (kind of in the same way country is short for country and Western). But I've heard of many people who say it that way too (wikipedia even defines it this way). I don't necessarily agree with this "separation of rock and roll and roll" idea, but it's gotten out there quite a bit and that's the way many people think.

A good example is AC/DC, they've always insisted on being billed as a "rock and roll band." Not hard rock or heavy metal or anything else.

I wonder how others here feel about this?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 17:33pm


Well, my points got lost in the tide, but no, I don't believe the guitar is necessarily the primary instrument. For me, the most important instrument is the voice. And genres tend to be defined more accurately by their rhythmic structures and their compositional layouts, which tends to favor the percussion and possibly bass (while a kind of guitar, not the kind you're discussing). Even in the guitar argument, Berry's given a run fo his money by Bo Diddley.

Either Cheesecrop or classicrocker had also mentioned that for years, the sax was also quite a defining instrument of RnR.

Also, rap and rock do have the same roots. They can both be traced back to the R&B of the 50's. Remember, when the Beatles first made it big, their albums were full of R&B covers. FWIW, I don't agree that "rock'n'roll" ended in '64. Too many of the musicians themselves carry on the banner: Billy Joel, Huey Lewis (who I think has a shot to get in one day), Springsteen, Seger, etc.

As I said, I can't accept Chuck mainly because he didn't break through until '55. He was there, but R&B legends like Lloyd Price, Fats Domino, Ray Charles, and Clyde McPhatter already had the ball rolling. I think the Father of Rock'n'Roll should have some establishment in the Pre-1955 days.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 17:39pm


Yeah Philip, I had written that the saxophone was the prominent instrument for soloing in the early days....that people like King Curtis, Joe Houston, and Sam "the man" Taylor were to the saxophone what Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page were to the guitar later on.

I think our posts from around midnight were deleted for some reason....and I agree that "the Father of Rock'n'Roll should have some establishment in the Pre-1955 days."



Posted by classicrocker on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 20:44pm


Its funny people brought up the Rolling Stone Guitar List because they just came out with a new list. Here's the list and I also posted the people that voted for the list:


THE VOTERS: Trey Anastasio, Dan Auerbach (The Black Keys), Brian Bell (Weezer), Ritchie Blackmore (Deep Purple), Carl Broemel (My Morning Jacket), James Burton, Jerry Cantrell (Alice in Chains), Gary Clark Jr., Billy Corgan, Steve Cropper, Dave Davies (The Kinks), Anthony DeCurtis (Contributing editor, Rolling Stone), Tom DeLonge (Blink-182), Rick Derringer, Luther Dickinson (North Mississippi Allstars), Elliot Easton (The Cars), Melissa Etheridge, Don Felder (The Eagles), David Fricke (Senior writer, Rolling Stone), Peter Guralnick (Author), Kirk Hammett (Metallica), Albert Hammond Jr. (The Strokes), Warren Haynes (The Allman Brothers Band), Brian Hiatt (Senior writer, Rolling Stone), David Hidalgo (Los Lobos), Jim James (My Morning Jacket), Lenny Kravitz, Robby Krieger (The Doors), Jon Landau (Manager), Alex Lifeson (Rush), Nils Lofgren (The E Street Band), Mick Mars (Mötley Crüe), Doug Martsch (Built to Spill), J Mascis (Dinosaur Jr.), Brian May, Mike McCready (Pearl Jam), Roger McGuinn (The Byrds), Scotty Moore, Thurston Moore (Sonic Youth), Tom Morello, Dave Mustaine (Megadeth), Brendan O’Brien (Producer), Joe Perry, Vernon Reid (Living Colour), Robbie Robertson, Rich Robinson (The Black Crowes), Carlos Santana, Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Marnie Stern, Stephen Stills, Andy Summers, Mick Taylor, Susan Tedeschi, Vieux Farka Touré, Derek Trucks, Eddie Van Halen, Joe Walsh, Nancy Wilson (Heart)

1. Jimi Hendrix
2. Eric Clapton
3. Jimmy Page
4. Keith Richards
5. Jeff Beck
6. B.B. King
7. Chuck Berry
8. Eddie Van Halen
9. Duane Allman
10. Pete Townshend
11. George Harrison
12. Stevie Ray Vaughan
13. Albert King
14. David Gilmour
15. Freddy King
16. Derek Trucks
17. Neil Young
18. Les Paul
19. James Burton
20. Carols Santana
21. Chet Atkins
22. Frank Zappa
23. Buddy Guy
24. Angus Young
25. Tony Iommi
26. Brian May
27. Bo Diddley
28. Johnny Ramone
29. Scotty Moore
30. Elmore James
31. Ry Cooder
32. Billy Gibbons
33. Prince
34. Curtis Mayfield
35. John Lee Hooker
36. Randy Rhoads
37. Mick Taylor
38. The Edge
39. Steve Cropper
40. Tom Morello
41. Mick Ronson
42. Mike Bloomfield
43. Hubert Sumlin
44. Mark Knopfler
45. Link Wray
46. Jerry Garcia
47. Stephen Stills
48. Johnny Greenwood
49. Muddy Waters
50. Ritchie Blackmore
51. Johnny Marr
52. Clarence White
53. Otis Rush
54. Joe Walsh
55. John Lennon
56. Albert Collins
57. Rory Gallagher
58. Peter Green
59. Robbie Robertson
60. Ron Asheton
61. Dickey Betts
62. Robert Fripp
63. Johnny Winter
64. Duane Eddy
65. Slash
66. Leslie West
67. T-Bone Walker
68. John McLaughlin
69. Richard Thompson
70. Jack White
71. Robert Johnson
72. John Frusciate
73. Kurt Cobain
74. Dick Dale
75. Joni Mitchell
76. Robby Krieger
77. Willie Nelson
78. John Fahey
79. Mike Cambell
80. Buddy Holly
81. Lou Reed
82. Nels Cline
83. Eddie Hazel
84. Joe Perry
85. Andy Summers
86. J Mascis
87. James Hetfeld
88. Carl Perkins
89. Bonnie Raitt
90. Tom Verlaine
91. Dave Davies
92. Dimebag Darrell
93. Paul Simon
94. Peter Buck
95. Roger McGuinn
96. Bruce Springsteen
97. Steve Jones
98. Alex Lifeson
99. Thurston Moore
100. Lindsey Buckingham

Personally I think this is much better than the last one and I really like the voters they selected.

Posted by Gassman on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 21:50pm


There's people that voted that are better than those that made it. One bizarre instance of this is Hetfield making it but Hammett not. What the hell?

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 22:06pm


If Jimi Hendrix really said that Terry Kath was a better guitarist than he was then this list is an absolute joke because Jimi is ranked #1, but Terry Kath doesn't even appear on the list.

Posted by classicrocker on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 22:07pm


54. Joe Walsh
55. John Lennon
73. Kurt Cobain
79. Mike Cambell
80. Buddy Holly
81. Lou Reed
87. James Hetfeld
93. Paul Simon
96. Bruce Springsteen
97. Steve Jones
100. Lindsey Buckingham

There's ten (off the top of my head) that I would have left off. And yes, I've heard Lindsey Buckingham's live version of 'Big Love'.

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 22:12pm


I am, however, glad that they decided to put J. Mascis on there this time around.

Keith Richards at 4 is kind of a joke too, and I'm a huge stones fan. Due to influence and stellar rhythm-playing and guitar-driven songwriting I would have put him on the list, but 4 is just too high.

Also Warren Haynes and Lee Ranaldo should be on there... Trucks and Moore are.

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 22:17pm


Wow, has there really been more than 50 comments since I posted the other day? Yikes...

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 11.27.11 @ 22:20pm


Excuuuuuse me? The question was about Vanilla Fudge. Before you go denying them their due, learn some facts. The have been called by musc authorities the forerunner of heavy metal. They were before Led Zep and Deep Purple. Deep Purple stated they wanted to be the British Vanilla Fudge. Yes, Styx, Funkedelic, and even Led Zeppelin, who opened for Vanilla Fudge on their first US tour admit influence. Zep was basically a rock and blues band at first evolving from the New Yardbirds. Carmine Appice was John Bonham's mentor. Carmine was first. Even Pete Townsend of the Who said he'd never heard a Hammond organ take the front like a guitar before Vanilla Fudge. Indeed the original Vanilla Fudge deserves to be in the Hall much more than some who are already there.

Posted by Stan on Sunday, 11.23.14 @ 09:07am


"The have been called by musc authorities the forerunner of heavy metal."

i just called the music cops and they told me metal was actually started by john denver so i dont know what this nonsense means.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 11.24.14 @ 14:43pm


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.