Do the Talking Heads and Tom Petty really belong in the Hall of Fame? (1 Viewer)

[Brian Perry]

I enjoy some of their music, but I certainly wouldn't put either of them in the upper echelons of rock music.

For the sake of argument, let's compare Tom Petty with the hard-rock group Rush. I believe that Rush have sold more albums, Rush are much better musicians from a technical standpoint, and Rush have influenced far more bands than Petty. So why does Petty get inducted and Rush can't even get nominated?

Could it be political? What are the standards by which these things are judged?

(As you can tell, I'm a big Rush fan.)

 

[KeithH]

Could it be political?

Probably. Everything else is. :frowning:

 

[Kevin Leonard]

For the sake of argument, let's compare Tom Petty with the hard-rock group Rush. I believe that Rush have sold more albums, Rush are much better musicians from a technical standpoint, and Rush have influenced far more bands than Petty. So why does Petty get inducted and Rush can't even get nominated?

OK, let's use your example. Selling a lot of albums and being able to pull off some complicated guitar riffs does not mean you should automatically be inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame.
I'm really restraining myself here, but let's just say that Rush will never be a favorite of mine. I think you're overestimating their importance; they haven't done anything that bands like Mountain, ELP, King Crimson and Genesis (old-school of course) did before them. Another reason is that, like it or not, Rush is still seen by many as a prog-rock band, a genre that has NEVER done well with The R&R Hall of Fame.
Petty is a bit harder to pin down; you could logically argue that he did nothing new and original when he hit the scene like Rush, but his debut album was released when disco and "mainstream" rock was reigning supreme. And I'm sure many saw him as a blast of fresh air, as his music was basically 60's garage rock, which I believe was scarce on the radio at the time. Don't get me wrong though: while I love Petty and The Heartbreakers dearly, I believe a lot of their being inducted into the Hall of Fame has to do with them being in the right place at the right time.
And yes, I firmly believe Talking Heads belong in the Hall of Fame. Along with their peers The Ramones (another inductee), they made some incredible albums that are still as daring, brilliant and influential when they were first released. Remain In Light to this day is a landmark recording; though the Heads didn't introduce them, they are largely responsible for bringing worldbeat and polyrhythms to the US public. And the New Wave-ish sound of their first two albums ain't shabby either.
Basically, what it amounts to is that the Heads, Ramones and Petty are seen as head figures in the rock revival of the late 70's; Rush is viewed by many as the antithesis of what the above mentioned groups were trying to do, which was return rock back to a more stripped-down, get-the-point-across-quickly format.
Just my view on the whole situation...I'm going to go put on my flame suit now.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Should Tom Petty and Talking Heads be in the Hall?

Absolutely. Tom Petty's written and performed some of the best straight-ahead rock music ever, and Talking Heads were true musical pioneers.

Should Rush be in the Hall?

Well, it wouldn't bother me any. But I doubt very many "art-rock"/"prog" artists are going to end up in the Hall. Critics just have too much antipathy toward it.

Pink Floyd made it in, but critics have always had a soft spot for good ol' Syd. Yes isn't in there, neither is ELP or King Crimson or Genesis (or even Peter Gabriel solo, which I would think should change soon), and of course no Kraftwerk or Gentle Giant or anything like that. Queen is in, and they're sorta kinda art/prog, but they received a lot of critical goodwill after Freddie died, and most critics have forgotten how much they hated 'em originally. The only other group in there that's even close is Cream, and they got in because of Clapton.

Not saying Rush'll never happen (I hope they do get in), but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Of course, one of the all-time ultimate "prog" bands (at least if you count concept albums, instrumental virtuosity, and songs that last forever as "prog"), Parliament-Funkadelic, is in the Hall, and rightly so. If the Hall had dissed the Funk, the bad karma would never be worked out...

Ryan

 

[BrianB]

I don't know enough about Tom Petty to say whether he should be in a fake 'Hall of Fame' or otherwise.

But Talking Heads? They deserve a place in any quality 'hall of fame' of the modern music era. They're an *incredibly* influential band - they were a key band in the New York band scene of their era, their experimental videos were ahead of their time, their concert video (Stop Talking Sense) is still considered one of the best band movies ever, their music influenced a generation (and beyond) of art-rock bands.

/After/ Talking Heads, the band members went on to collaborate with artists as varied as Brian Eno & the Happy Mondays, influencing yet more music & yet more taste.

A band capable of producing music such as "Once in a Lifetime" and "She Was" is most definitely deserving of a place in a Hall of Fame.

 

[Keith Paynter]

I can't say much for Tom Petty, but as far as Talking Heads, most definitely.

To labour the point, The band's debut album is a raw and energetic album. Every album was different and the band was evolving musically every time. Remain In Light shows the effective use of African rhythms, Speaking In Tongues shows the lyrical success in the ambiguity of unrelated phrases, Stop Making Sense as a concert film shows the band at its live best as a conceptual show (all original band members met through art college), and later albums give David a chance to learn how to be a 'singer'. Their final album, though full of tension in the studio, is full of great cross-cultural rhythm.

Few bands to come out of the American punk/new wave scene of CBGB's in the late 70's 'anti-disco' age were as successful, with the exceptions of The Ramones (who were never a 'radio-friendly' band) and Blondie.

David is not on very good speaking terms with the rest of the band, but hopefully, as they did for the re-release of Stop Making Sense in theaters, they can briefly put aside their differences for the public to accept an honor they truly deserve. There has not been another band like them since.

 

[John Tillman]

I know nothing about 'the' Hall of Fame, but I would say that Petty belongs in my Hall of Fame.

Petty established himself as a songwriter, bandleader and performer of Rock & Roll. His talent and original style put him in the company of Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, George Harrison and Jeff Lynne. If he was good enough for these fellas, well...

 

[Jeff]

I was a big Rush fan in the 80's and have been listening to them for the last year again. As much as I think they are talented, they don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

And I agree, neither do Talking Heads or Petty.

Jeff

 

[MikeH1]

I can't say much for Talking Heads. I have never really cared for their sound but I also haven't heard much of the music. So I will not come to a worthy opinion. However, Tom Petty I have always been a big fan of and think he does deserve a place in the 'hall. Hes such a down to earth American songwriter that combines so many types of music. (the whistling at the end of Learning To Fly is his way of saying thanks to the Byrds, just FYI).
I was 15 in 1989 and remember Full Moon Fever being the sleeper hit album of the year. His contributions over the last 25 years or so is immense. Then again, he was one of my first favorite rock artists, so I could be a little biased

 

[Alex Shk]

Yes - both Petty and the Heads belong in the HOF. Petty reminded the world of the beauty of simple rock songs in the age of corporate rock and disco. As he matured, his writing became more ironic and socially challenging - including several viscous stabs at the entertainment industry to which he belongs.

The Heads brought a more socially conscious view to the punk movement, and as they grew, their music became increasingly complex. From garage punk ('77), to album rock (Fear of Music), to world music with a funk beat (Remain In Light), to pop (Road to Nowhere) to Brazilian rhythms (Naked) - this was band that took many artistic chances and did it all well.

To equate the popularity of Rush with their influence is absurd. The Monkees sold a lot of records in the 60's, but one would hardly call them influential (and NO, I am not comparing Rush to the Monkees). As previously stated, many other acts had far more influence than Rush on the prog rock genre. Additionally, Rush never really tested the boundaries of their talent: they have pretty much stuck to the same sound that initially defined them. While this isn't a reason to exclude an artist (I'm sure it won't stop Van Halen - DOH!), taking a musical "risk" is a good reason to consider one.

 

[Brian Perry]

I agree that being in the progressive rock (or hard-rock/heval metal) genre probably hurts groups like Rush, but I wonder why a genre like punk seems to get so much respect. I mean, come on -- how many people do you know who actually like the Sex Pistols? Why is that movement important?

There are many groups who are popular to bash because they made "formula" or "arena" rock songs, such as Journey, Foreigner, Styx, etc. But Tom Petty seems to get rewarded for making "simple" or "straightforward" rock songs. That's why I see Rush as a more significant artist. They made non-coventional songs (although not as groundbreaking as Yes or King Crimson) that were popular, and influenced a lot of bands and musicians. Yes, some of those bands are laughable, but no more laughable than punk.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Selling a lot of albums and being able to pull off some complicated guitar riffs does not mean you should automatically be inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame.

I couldn't have phrased it better. I never have understood the appeal of musical masturbation acts like Rush, and I doubt I ever will. Give me technically-awkward but rich and deep music any day.

As for the original question, I definitely think the Heads belong, but will agree that Petty's a stretch. I don't think he's a MISTAKE to put in the hall, really, but I also wouldn't argue too strongly for his inclusion.

The Heads are a different matter. As mentioned by others, they were far too important and influential to omit from the Hall. Granted, the whole thing's a joke to a great degree, but if we're going to view it with some level of seriousness, I'd definitely espouse the inclusion of the Heads...

 

[Brian Perry]

Additionally, Rush never really tested the boundaries of their talent: they have pretty much stuck to the same sound that initially defined them.

Alex,
I have to disagree with you there. First of all, how you you know how far their talent was stretched? Neil Peart, who is arguably one of the most influential rock drummers of the last 25 years, always talks about learning new things on each album and seeking new ideas to incorporate into his "toolbox." And as far as staying with the same sound, most fans will tell you that their post-Signals albums went in a different direction, not at all pleasing to fans looking for the old "Tom Sawyer" and "2112" songs.
I will agree that sheer popularity or records sold should not be the main criteria for picking hall of fame bands. On the other hand, I think you need to give a band credit for striking a chord with a great many people.

 

[MikeAW]

Frankly, I feel that this "thing" called the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame, shouldn't have even been created.

It does absolutely nothing for Music. It does nothing to preserve or push the Music forward, as a form of creative expression. It does nothing but create a mutual Industry backslapping vehicle for Industry politics and crass exploitation...a Tv show, a museum to sell things, and alot of synthetic Fan buzz for the same over the inductees chosen. Capitalism at it's worse!

Pro or con, whether someone or thing, whether this or that should be inducted or not, usually creates more bad feelings than it entertains, overlooking and insulting those who indeed ARE more deserving. Comparison of all these talents considered, is like comparing apples and oranges. It's one of the more shameful, of the music industry trade organizations around, and it fulfills it's unnecessary purpose quite well!

 

[bill lopez]

When they put Ricky Nelson in the Hall of Fame after his death anybody could be put in.

 

[Jason_H]

Well, MikeAW hit on exactly what I was about to say. Does anybody else think that the whole Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a big joke? I really don't put much weight behind the fact that an artist is/isn't in the Hall.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Please define "musical masturbation."

Music that exists mainly to show off the physical prowess of the player. Epitomized by folks like Steve Vai. I got dragged to a Vai show in 1999 and wanted to kill myself the whole time. EVERY song had the same kind of eight-jillion-notes-a-second solo. Utterly tuneless, passionless dreck.

Rush are a step up from Vai and his ilk, but not much of one...

 

[Philip Hamm]

I absolutely can not stand to listen to Rush. I think that the fact that Neal Peart has been a large influence on rock drumming is a disservice to those who really want to know what drums are all about (hint: drumming is not about similar sounding tom fills done 100 times at 100 miles an hour). I can't stand their music, it's grating.
That said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for all three of the brilliant musicians in the band. The sound they get from just three instruments is nothing short of amazing. There is no denying Geddy Lee's influence on the bass guitar. Alex Leifson (sp?) is probably one of the most underrated guitarrists playing. The way he completes the Rush sound is amazing, and he gets very interesting tones on his guitar. Neil Peart, though I absolutely DISDAIN his drum style with a passion, is most definitely a very talented and influential drummer. And I remember hearing a few years ago that he started taking lessons and learning jazz so he can really drum.
Rush belongs in the Hall just as much as Petty, perhaps not as much as the Heads. IMO of course.

 

[Chris Brunner]

I'm a huge Tom Petty fan so who am I to argue. I'm sure his induction has a bit to do with the Hall of Fame company he has kept over the years as well. (Dylan, Harrison, Orbison, G.Dead, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac....)

My major gripe with the whole HOF induction process is the inclusion of "flavor of the week" participants in the actual ceremony.

I caught a glimpse of last years show on VH1 a little while back and shudder when is see fleeting glimpses of members of Queen, Aerosmith and The Band while F'n KID ROCK is mugging it up front and center. For me, that sorta lessens the impact of the whole R&R Hall of Fame experience.

C

 

[Mike Broadman]

If the amount of influence a band or artist had on rock was an important qualification, than Black Sabbath would have been inducted a long time ago.

If popularity (record sales, concert draws) was a factor, than Emerson, Lake and Palmer would have been inducted.

Of course, since critics hate both heavy metal and "prog," this isn't going to happen.

The Rock and Roll Hall and Fame is an opportunity for critics to get together and wax nostalgic over the good ol' days when people actually cared what they had to say.

Ironic how bands like Rush are considered pretentious and arrogant by the most arrogant people in the music industry: the critics.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke, and a poor one at that.

They regularly induct old one hit wonder singing groups. Just because they are from the "Golden Age" of rock and had one hit in 1958 and people can sit there and say, "Oh yeah, I remember that." Please.

It's also no coincedence that two of the inductees last year, Steely Dan and Paul Simon, released new albums and were making "come backs." It's also pretty sad that both of those albums were nominated as album of the year by that other sham award, the Grammy. I mean, they're good albums and I like them both, but let's try to be a little relevant here. Steely Dan was bashed by critics and the press for so long. I bet Aja didn't win album of the year, so now they're trying to make up for it by giving it to a lesser album in Two Against Nature. It's exactly like when they gave Al Pacino an Oscar for Scent of a Woman to make up for slighting him throughout his career.

For the record, like 'em or not, Rush is very influencial. Their influence has been cited by such diverse bands as No Doubt, Pantera, Primus, Hootie and the Blowfish, and (gasp) scores of non-mainstream acts.

And yes, Mr. Rock Critic, heavy metal is a viable, creative, important style of rock music. Leave out Black Sabbath, and you automatically lose any credible of being a true Hall of Fame.