Rock n Roll hall of Fame-WHAT THE HELL? - Page 4

Once again the Hall of Shame screws the pooch (at least they got Sabbath and the Sex Pistols right). It's going to really bug me over the next few years when shitty New Wave bands start getting in like Flock of Seagulls, Thompson Twins, etc. in favor of prog giants like Yes, Genesis, and the most deserving of all, IMO, Rush. What a joke!

BLONDIE??

I could - and would. Fusion was an insubstantial genre that produced little meaningful work and had little impact on popular music. It never really took off - why would influencing THAT get you into the HOF?

Miles doesn't belong in the R&R HOF. He's an absurd choice...

Hard to argue. They're stronger than some like Percy Sledge or Frankie Lymon or the Flamingos or Ritchie Valens or Brenda Lee but inferior to most. Frankly, I think they made it because they're still together to play the ceremony...

Flock and TT ain't ever getting in - don't get carried away because of Blondie. They were more popular/influential in their time and still are around - can't say that for the other two.

But Blondie IS an odd choice. If you want an act of that generation, why not pick the Cure? Much better selection, and they're still together...

That's the thing, tho. Rags like Rolling Stone since the late 70s look down on progressive rock as being "pretentious". The fact that the Sex Pistols are getting in before any prog act is proof of that.

(Not that I don't think the Sex Pistols aren't deserving. They certainly the poster boys of punk, it is just the timing I question.)

Jason

why do the Sex Pistols belong?

they are another choice that lends creedance that the RRHOF picks critical darlings instead of legitimate artists..

the sex pistols may have help foster in punk rock but that was mostly image and not musical ability....

I'd be suprised if there are many musicians who really care about getting into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. It seems to be the fans who are rushing to defend the honour of their favourite artists.

Is Duran Duran or Madonna eligible yet?

Van Halen not in yet?

I'm someone who shares more than a little in taste with "critics' darlings," and someone who fully understands why Rush, Genesis and other prog rock or stadium bands haven't been inducted by the critics. My only comment is that you may not agree with the choices or omissions, but they are consistent with those critical standards. Don't make the mistake of writing it all off as some sort of clique-like behavior that doesn't correspond to a band's worth.

When you look at the musical world through the eyes of most critics:

1. Music that keeps close to R&B and other roots music is valued over the more grandiose.

2. Sales are irrelevant.

3. Feeling is valued over instrument proficiency.

4. "Influential" doesn't matter if you don't value the supposedly influential artist in the first place. Pick an artist you hate who has a score of copycats and consider whether "influential" sways your opinion of that artist.

5. "Influential" matters if you've effected a (desired) sea change in music. Ray Charles, who was one of the first to move from gospel to secular, was influential and a pioneer. Figuring a way to bring punk values (if not sounds) into the mainstream (see: Blondie) is valued where space jams are not. In the mind of the critics, Rush merely spawned a bunch of other similarly overblown culprits and that sort of behavior shouldn't be rewarded. (Please don't hurt me - I'm just explaining the thought process...)

6. Less is more. A great 3-minute single kicks the crap out of an album-length suite.

I could go on. You don't have to agree with any or all of these criteria, and given the bands that are being championed by most of the posts, of course you disagree with all of this. Ultimately, though, this is all about the HOF gatekeepers deciding that some music is worthy and other music is not. You can hate the choices, but from where I'm sitting, the choices are consistent with the criteria being applied.

At the end of the day, though, who cares if your favorites, or mine, are in or out of the HOF? I can't think of anything that has less effect on what I enjoy and hate.

Hard to argue with that, Stu, and I completely agree that those are the HOF's criteria for induction. It's the criteria itself that is worthy of attacking, IMO. Frankly, the only time I think of the HOF is when one of my favorite bands gets passed over.

How would you answer these questions, though.

1. Why did it take Black Sabbath 10 years to be inducted into the Hall? Though I'm not much of a fan, I recognize their huge influence over an entire genre of rock and roll, a genre that is founded in blues music, the ultimate source of all American popular music.

2. What makes Queen (the ultimate in grandiose overblown pomposity) more worthy of induction than Rush? It certainly isn't a folksy 'roots' approach, nor is it their deep, Dylan-esque socially-concious lyrical content, nor is it their concise 3-minute ditties? (Bohemian Rhapsody, anyone?) I would argue that it is precisely their grandiosity (and their technical proficiency) that got them in.

3. Van Halen is not in the HOF, but _______________ is? This one is truly a head-scratcher. The guitarist is only the most revered since Hendrix and they were the essence of good time hard rock music for over a decade.

what's with all the Blondie bashing? Parallel Lines is as much a classic album as that of anyone else getting in this year has had IMO. They're by far my favorite of the 2005 inductees.

well, while Rush has had some success, I would argue that Queen is the better known of the two groups. My dad is seventy and he has a copy of "Queen's Greatest Hits" even. I like Rush better between the two but they do not have a "We Will Rock You", "Another One Bites The Dust" or "Bohemian Rhapsody" style song that the entire world knows.

The Sex Pistols belong in the HOF for the same reason Bill Haley and the Comets do (I suppose). They were the first bands to exemplify their genre of music. They were pioneers, and yet another example that the HOF does indeed recognize influential bands regardless of their actual artistic merit.

Undoubtedly, Queen is more popular than Rush and they've sold more records worldwide (Sales are irrelevant??). But whatever Queen does, it ain't rock and roll. It's more like Broadway.

Stu,

Unfortunately, you may be correct in your assessment; but I think you could rephrase the points and say that an entire genre of music (progressive rock) is being penalized for:

a) not being "black" enough
b) selling millions of records
c) being instrumentally proficient
d) inspiring other bands (for better or worse)
e) writing longer, non-radio-friendly songs

I just don't see any valid argument by which Blondie gets in over Genesis, Yes, or Rush.

Jeez I just read through this whole thread and now my head hurts.

What I think everyone is overlooking is that the HOF only inducts so many artists per year and there have been a hell of a lot of artists over the last 50 years. So eventually a lot of the groups and artists mentioned here will be inducted but it just takes time. I suppose you could argue over who gets priority but then you'll be arguing until the cows come home.

Personally I don't really care. Who is in the Hall Of Fame and who isn't doesn't change what music I listen to one iota.

I'm still trying to figure out how Blondie got in also. Actually I just looked at the list of inductees and I'm surprised not to see Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, Genesis and Aerosmith already in there. No telling what the qualifications are.

But like somebody else said earlier, I don't think about the Hall until they announce the new inductees.

since when Blondie suddenly become hated? The Pretenders are in and Deborah predated Chrissie for crying out loud

Look again. Led Zeppelin & Aerosmith are in.

No - and anyone with a scintilla of knowledge of the history of popular music would disagree with you. The Sex Pistols were a necessary evil - they paved the way for the tighter guitar-based sounds of the bands that followed like Elvis Costello, The Police, etc, right through to REM. And they swept away the weaker elements in the existing music scene. The better prog rock acts (Floyd, Genesis, Yes, etc) all survived and indeed thrived - check their album sales if you don't believe me. What was kicked out were the also-rans like Greenslade, Badger et al. And also (praise the Lord) disco got booted out of the singles charts.

Going back on topic, I think that it's not so much the choices as some of the omissions that are perverse. I've no objection to the folks who have been inducted, but if they are going to be that all-embracing, then a heck of a lot of other acts should be in there as well. Progressive rock deserves its place just as much as e.g. R n B or soul (perhaps more so because R n B and soul are incredibly limited musically whereas at least prog rock tries to be adventurous). Although critics feign to dislike it now, try digging up what they were saying about prog rock in the seventies. The music that gave people pleasure in each decade should be given is due recognition, no matter what people think about it now.

So disco should be in, then?

"What the hell"...The real Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame is in HELL, not Cleveland...

Yes - it has just as much right as soul, which has as tangential a link to 'rock'. And if anyone can argue why e.g. Percy Sledge has had a bigger influence on popular music than Kraftwerk or the Bee Gees then I'd love to hear it. What I or others personally think about it is immaterial. E.g. not everyone likes Shakespeare's works, but only a complete ass would deny his importance.

The Rock and roll hall of fame is an irrelevant joke. Rock and roll artists kind of give it legitimacy by performing there and I suppose it is an "honor" for them. But it's an absolute laugh. A marketing thing.

Being in the R&R hall of fame is about as relevant to true greatness in rock and roll as having your name registered in the "Star Registry" is to serious astronamy.

Queen weren't rock and roll at all? Keep Yourself Alive? Tie Your Mother Down? Fat Bottomed Girls? I Want It All?

will someone answer me why it was okay for Pretenders to be inducted last year but Blondie getting in is similar to Milli Vanilli?

I mean, if you consider the two groups, you'd see a lot of similarities, except Blondie did it FIRST. I don't get why after years of being treated as legends suddenly the thought of Blondie in the Hall Of Fame is treated with the same type of scoff that Samantha Fox would get?

I don't get it either quite frankly. I do believe that they were a borderline act, but I also thought the same of "The Pretenders". Blondie definitely deserves their spot, but personally I feel there are more relevant acts still sitting on the outside looking in like Peter Gabriel & The Cure.

For those Blondie haters out there, you really ought to pick up some of their material and listen to it. As somebody already pointed out "Parallel Lines" is a significant album. I honestly didn't know much about them until I picked up the 2-disc collection about 8 years ago, and I was blown away by much of the material on there. There is much more to this band than "Heart of Glass".

Jeez, Jay, you won't let this go, will you?

First of all, cut the hyperbole. No one compared Blondie to Milli Vanilli. No one's hating on Blondie. I like Blondie. I just don't think they quite belong in the HoF. FWIW, I would say the same about the Pretenders. Both good groups, both with a number of good to great tunes - but they don't get over the hump for me as far as being innovative or pushing rock forward. But that's just my opinion. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about if you happen to think Blondie does belong. After all, the HoF obviously agrees with you.

From the Hall of Fame site itself, here's what they say about eligibility of performers:

I quote that as a kind of level set for all of us.



It actually already is, IMO. I would argue that the Bee Gees got over the hump largely on the massive critical & popular success of their disco-era work, specifically the "Saturday Night Fever" tunes. They just beat other disco era acts because their career started back in the 60s. If the Bee Gees output had consisted solely of the gentle pop from that phase of their career, I doubt they would have made it in.

I would hardly classify the Bee Gees as a disco group. Four or five dancable songs in a career spanning over 40 years makes you a disco group?



I guess you could argue that a lot of artists/groups fall under the "significance" and "perpetuation" part of the criteria rather than the "influence" and "development" part.