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

[John_Bonner]

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

Right on Mike!

I had written a long response to this thread arguing different points that have been made so far but instead I deleted it and I'll just get right to my point.

Rush has always been a very influential band and the three members have always been influential musicians. Do they belong in the Hall of Fame? Who gives a damn! I'll bet Geddy, Neil & Alex don't. I'll bet the legions of incredibly loyal fans who buy their albums and go to their concerts could care less. Rush doesn't have anything to prove. I'f you don't like them, so be it. But to say they are not influential is just plain wrong.

 

[Leroy]

I was surprised to hear about the latest inductees. Petty, moreso than the Heads. I'm also surprised at the animosity directed towards Rush by some here.

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.

What were you listening too? I can't seem to recall any songs that fit into this mold. If you were talking about Dream Theater's drummer, then I would understand
Anyway, although I'm not too big of a Talking Heads fan, I see their influence and impact on music to be more far reaching than that of Petty. I even see Rush's influence (this is from a fan and musician point of view) to be more than that of Petty's(and I really like his music).

 

[Alex Shk]

There is no doubt that induction into the hall is a political process. The selections always seem to reflect the way the hall wants to be viewed more than what may or may not have been "influential". I'm sure it didn't hurt Tom Petty to be on a first name basis with a couple of Beatles, a couple of Stones and Bob Dylan as well.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much unavoidable - the Oscar's and Grammy's are shining examples of misplaced vision throughout their history.

Double unfortunately: allowing the general public to vote on these things rarely makes it any better. Look at the American music awards, a pandering to the lowest common denominator if there ever was one. I think it is ridiculous to compare who didn't make it in with those who did - sooner or later all of them will get in. By hook or crook.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Ooh, here's an idea: how about the people stop wasting their time ranking and filing musicians, and go back to doing some, er, what's it called... oh yeah, LISTENING!

I almost went nuts last year with all of those lists. Oh, you remember: top 10 artists of the century, top 34 bass player hairdos of the millenium, etc. Uch.

Although, I admit occassionally checking out VH1s corny little list things. It's just so awful, sometimes I can't look away.:b

Anyway, back to the topic: the Talking Heads are influencial. They took awful 80s "new wave" music and were able to craft somewhat interesting music.

Tom Petty, as much as I like him, is like some bar singer who somehow caught a break. But I guess that's his charm. Someone mentioned that his simple straight-ahead songs ran counter to disco and what was popular at the time, he does deserve credit for that.

 

[Frank_W]

Tom Petty to is me not a slacker by any means, but inducted
to the HOF, no. The Talking Heads, and we are talking about
one of the great bands that came out of CBGBOMFG, have
definitely proven to be worthy of this induction.
Rush, hmmm... I think they are much more deserving than
Tom Petty. However, there are two opinions of this band
in Rock and Roll (good and bad), and this will hurt
there chances. I do agree they should be there before a
Tom Petty.

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

I am not sure what 'after his death' means but, Ricky Nelson
definitely deserves to be there.
IF you disagree that is fine, but surely read up on
what he has done and who he has influenced.
Remember what Ozzy said "F**k the R&R HOF."

 

[Jim_C]

I'll never understand the need for people to disregard prog as musical masturbation. To each his own I say. People who love prog could easily go around complaining about simplistic arrangements and repetitive lyrics. "I, wanna rock and roll all night, and party every day". Now repeat fourteen times and put a basic beat under it. Sorry, I just don't see the appeal.

I don't mean to come across negatively towards anyone here. I just get tired of people attacking prog. And yes, I love Rush.

 

[Ivan Lindenfeld]

I know all three of the bands debated here very well. I think we are all unanimous about the Talking Heads. They should have their own shrine. I am not one that owns all of their albums or runs out to get the latest David Byrne experiment but I have listened to most of their commercially released stuff and I think there is RAW creativity there. Beautiful, American creativity. In.
Tom Petty. Great songs. Timeless rock songs like American Girl, Runnin' Down a Dream (OK, just about anything on Full Moon Fever) but influential? Nah. Being friends with Bobby Dylan, George Harrison and Roy Orbison (the God of Rock and Roll, IMHO) is cool but doesn't make him influential. I mean, the Traveling Wilbury's project was about making simple, entertaining rock songs. I personally think any of those guys, backed by Jeff Lynne's production could make hits. Oh wait, they pretty much all did. (I miss Roy Orbison the most.)
RUSH. Shit, wouldn't even be fair. They are one of my favorite bands. Top 5. I even bought Geddy Lee's solo album this year and liked it. Definitely Hall of Fame material. Definitely a major creative force in the industry.
Of course, all of this assumes we should give a crap, as if the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was built with more in mind than tourist dollars in Cleveland. As if. When I hear they are preserving old blues recordings, call back. Until then, sorry, wrong number.
Nice topic you got here.

 

[Charles Gurganus]

They are on IGNORE mode for me UNTIL they include the HOLLIES!

 

[Rain]

To answer the question, yes.

Though I think the Heads have been more influential than Petty, Petty's work remains consistently good on an ongoing basis and he has contributed many songs to the rock and roll canon.

No offense intended to the Rush fans, but I've always found them annoying. Lee is one of the worst vocalists I've ever heard in my life.

 

[bill lopez]

If THE ROCK & ROLL HALL OF FAME is going to dis Heavy Metal they better do the same to Rap.

 

[Mike Broadman]

No offense intended to the Rush fans, but I've always found them annoying. Lee is one of the worst vocalists I've ever heard in my life.

Cool. Now this is a complaint against Rush I can understand. Preferences for singers are purely subjective, and if you like or don't like one, that's fine. I happen to like Geddy Lee's singing a lot more than, say, Bob Dylan's, but most would disagree.

I only object when people say a band is guilty of "musical masturbation" or some other such elitist nonsense. No one is qualified to judge what constitutes Proper songwriting, especially those pretentious arrogant critics who make up cute little award things like the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame.

 

[TheLongshot]

The thing that annoys me about the R&R HOF is that to talk about R&R, you need to talk about ALL of it. I mean, how can you talk about punk without talking about 70s arena rock? I mean, it was a backlash against those bands that made the genre exist. There are still too many gaping holes when you are talking about the 70s, and some great bands that should be filing those blanks. For progressive rock, I definitly think King Crimson and Genesis should be there. For Heavy Metal, Black Sabbath should be there. All three of these bands were influential to bands that came after them, and it is a crime that they aren't.

As for the title of this thread, I do think The Talking Heads should be in, since they made interesting music in a wastland that was the New Wave. Tom Petty, tho, wasn't special enough to warrant that kind of reaction.

As for Rush, they are my favorite band, so I'm biased. I do think they should be in, but probably after the groups above. They are too influential and consistantly good not to be. I'd give it time, since they have only recently become elegigable. (It is 25 years, right?)

Jason

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I only object when people say a band is guilty of "musical masturbation" or some other such elitist nonsense. No one is qualified to judge what constitutes Proper songwriting, especially those pretentious arrogant critics who make up cute little award things like the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame.

Nothing "elitist" about it, and I wouldn't argue that Rush or other "I can play faster than you!" acts can't write songs. I just don't get the way some people link pure visual-motor coordination with actual musical talent. I see little point to much of this kind of music other than to show off various technical skills. If that floats your boat, more power to you. If one chooses to call me elitist, so be it, but I'll still see those endeavours as falling into the category of MM...

 

[Bergan Peters]

So why does Petty get inducted and Rush can't even get nominated?

Because Rush sucks. Their lead singer sounds like his nuts have yet to drop, and their songs are garbage. They are musical masturbation, they exist solely for themselves, they define nothing, and they represent nothing.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Well Mr. Peters, thank you for that objective, humble analysis.

Sure, technical showing-off for its own sake can be annoying (though I do find it amusing sometimes), but I really don't see why Rush is guilty of it. Most of their songs are in the typical rock song length, and feature verses, choruses, and lyrics. Yes, they apply some higher level of technicality to their song writing. So what's wrong with that? Are you telling me that one time signature is inherently better than another, or that a blues based song structure is more superior than another? Why? Why do some people feel they are granted with the gift to decide which musical approaches are better than others?

I promised myself I wouldn't get into this, but I just get so sick of hearing this stuff. Not liking a band or a song is fine, but I'd really like someone to explain to me why, say, Limelight is such an evil song.

As far as "existing for themselves," well, good for them. I'll let you in on a little secret: all the best artists create for themselves. Otherwise it's dishonest and just pandering. When you try to come up with something solely for the purposes of pleasing as many people as you can, that's making music by committee. Enter boy bands and disco.

Like Rush, the Talking Heads and Tom Petty make their kind of music for themselves and were fortunate enough to find appreciative audiences. Whether you like them or not is your business. I happen to like all three a lot, even though they all do different things. Some people understand that different musicians make different kinds of music, and thank god for that.

 

[Jim_C]

Way to add to the conversation Bergan:rolleyes

 

[Alex Shk]

I am always amused by the annual lament over which artists did or did not get inducted in the HOF (even though most of us agree that the distinction is essentially worthless). I guess the fever pitch is heightened by the halls obvious disdain for heavy metal and prog. I feel eventually they will come around to heavy metal, but I fear that we may not see any "mass inductions" until the 80's acts become eligible. They may never induct prog acts...

There are many acts I enjoy that will never be eligible - even though they were fantastically sucessful. In fact - I would probably consider it a mistake if they were inducted. Usually they executed their music well, but were largely inconsistent. Among them...

J. Geils Band - essentilly a blues based rock band that, when they were ON, they were DEAD on. Studio albums very inconsistent. Their claim to fame? No one could cut them onstage during their 1970-1975 heyday. No one. If they were the opening act, expect a looong intermission between sets.

Alice Cooper - the grandaddy of theatrical rock. Claim to fame? Four "killer" (pun intentional) albums in a row. Downfall? Tended to get goofy. Matters got worse when the original "Alice Cooper Band" was sacked.

Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes - spearheaded a sound reminiscent of early 60's R & B and girl group rock. Claim to fame? First three albums were dynamite. Downfall? Their best material was Bruce Springsteen outakes and (more importantly - to them) Steven Van Zandt songs (in essence- Van Zandt "defined" their sound). When they let the band work on their own, quality took a plunge downward.

Emerson Lake and Palmer - Their first three albums had EVERYONE interested in the possibilties of progressive music. Great melodies, musical ideas and execution. Trilogy and Brain Salad were slightly weeker (even though Brain Salad started to get.. er... goofy). When they decided to release solo material under the band name (Works I and II) they imploded. The next full band follow up (Love Beach) was a disater of such monumental proportions that even their die hard fans wonder "what were they thinking?"

Yes - this band managed to mix pop/rock sensibilities with arrangements much more complex than they seemed at first. Had the world in their pocket up until "Tales", when they began to create complex music that sounded complex - in est - the fun was gone. The public is a cruel master, this band re-captured and lost their "muse" several times since then (which is more than I can say for ELP), but never could recapture the ESSENCE of "The Yes Album" or "Fragile".

Black Sabbath - Many feel that they somehow defined heavy metal, they were surely the first band that embraced the term. They defined a sound with their first album, refined it over the next three (with the second, "Paranoid" probably being their seminal effort). Downfall? Only the hardcore fans remember anything after "Volume 4". Only the elite hardcore care about anything after Ozzy left. Betcha Ozzy gets in solo before the band does...

I want to restate - THSE ARE BANDS I LIKE. Matter of fact - I like any one of them more than I like Tom Petty (gotta admit - I like the Talking Heads MORE than any of the above), but I still feel he may have something he still might say to me. The problem with some of my old "heroes" listed above - I don't think they have anything left to say. And maybe that's what defines "greatness".

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

I just hope the Talking Heads -- one of my favorite bands of all time -- reform to play a set at the show.
Signing out now, before I start tearing Rush apart piece by piece!

 

[John_Bonner]

Signing out now, before I start tearing Rush apart piece by piece!

Bring it on!!!!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Colin, I guess you really haven't heard much Rush music because they don't play "fast" at all. Some of their patterns and fills require above average precision and dexterity but not speed. Acts like Racer X, Yngwie Malmsteen, and Slayer may fall into the "I can play faster than you!" category but not Rush.

You're right about the speed thing. I should have clarified to include precision/accuracy, not just sheer speed. I still think it's a triumph of technical skills above anything else, and that's what leaves me cold; the music under discussion seems to revolve largely around how complicated/fast/whatever the material is and leaves it at that...