|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 8, 2015 20:45:56 GMT -5
The nominations for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for 2016 were announced: Chicago, Cheap Trick, Deep Purple, the Cars, Janet Jackson, N.W.A, Nine Inch Nails, the Smiths, Yes, Chaka Khan, Chic, The J.B.'s, Los Lobos, Steve Miller and the Spinners. The "J.B's" was James Brown's backing band from 1970 through the early 80's...
|
|
|
|
Post by Veets on Oct 9, 2015 11:45:31 GMT -5
Just put 'em all in there. Who gives a fu(k. Put Bieber and Vanilla Ice in there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 9, 2015 18:35:13 GMT -5
I do...That's why I put up the thread...Plus, I enjoy seeing how angry people get about it... |
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on Oct 10, 2015 18:31:35 GMT -5
I think the RRHOF is a self-serving, ridiculous joke of an institution that has very little to do with the spirit of rock and roll.....but I do enjoy the discussions about who should be in and who shouldn't, and why, and when. And besides the hall, I think the museum is pretty cool. I though last year's ceremony was one of the better ones, with Joan Jett just rocking it with her speech and performance.
It's a strong class this year. I've been bitching about Cheap Trick and Deep Purple being excluded for years. Deep Purple is way overdue. I think Steve Miller is a no-brainer, Yes probably goes in, and NIN is the token alternative band this year.
I heard Cheap Trick is way down in the fan voting, so not sure how that will affect their final chances. Seems unlikely they'd go in the same year as The Cars, and as big a CT fan as I am, I think Cars fans have a pretty good case to get their band in.
Janet Jackson? Chaka Kahn? That's what makes it a joke. I can almost buy into the rock and roll spirit behind some rap bands like Public Enemy or NWA, but these 2 just seem so far removed from rock and roll. That means that Britney and, yes, maybe even Beiber have a spot some day. This is even more offensive to me than the fact that Metallica got in before Deep Purple. But it's still fun to talk about.
It'd be cool to see Bun E. back behind the kit for a Cheap Trick performance and Ritchie Blackmore pick up the strat again and play Smoke on the Water.
|
|
|
|
Post by curmudgeonman on Oct 10, 2015 19:22:16 GMT -5
I think the RRHOF is a self-serving, ridiculous joke of an institution I agree, I never once took the Hall of Fame seriously or paid much attention. But then I don't care about the Oscars, Grammys or Emmys either. The whole thing is a pet project for Jann Wenner anyways, so how good can it be? |
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 10, 2015 22:45:49 GMT -5
Here's why I support the RRHOF: One Christmas, my daughter gave me a DVD of the 25th anniversary RRHOF celebration...(At least, I think that's what it was)...One of the featured performers was Bruce Springsteen...During his set, at one point, he brought up Sam Moore, of the legendary R&B duo "Same & Dave" ("Soul Man", "Hold On, I'm Comin'") to do a song or two...You know this guy never received much monetary compensation, and little critical acclaim, during his performing years...He was probably around 70...But they do those songs, and he is pretty damn fucking good, and it goes over big time...He looked like he was having the time of his life...Nice latter-day recognition that probably meant a world to this guy...At other times, I've seen family members of bands inducted, members of whom have long since passed, moved to tears by just having the contributions of their loved ones recognized, somewhere, anywhere...Then it just seems kinda petty for me to be pissed off that Jann Wenner paid for it all, or to quibble about the definition of "rock and roll"...I've had plenty of opportunities to prove how cool I was, or what phenomenal integrity I had, or how much of a rock purist I was...But I pretty much fail on all those accounts...I'm basically a pop whore, anyway...Plus, this annual ritual always ignites a discussion about the validity and artistic merit of a pretty rich, diverse history of musical artists that I at least find entertaining, if not conclusive...I don't know: I always really feel like vigorous bitching about this thing wasn't much different than people who refuse to vote, because "it doesn't make any difference"...You're a better man than I, I guess, but you don't seem like you'd be very much fun to hang out with...
|
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Oct 11, 2015 1:31:41 GMT -5
You know this guy never received much monetary compensation, and little critical acclaim, during his performing years... That's great that you enjoyed the performance, but Sam Moore is literally one of the most successful and critically acclaimed soul singers of his era. The guy made millions. And he still hasn't stopped performing throughout his successful and highly acclaimed solo career. The RRHoF isn't exactly known for celebrating underappreciated performers. |
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 11, 2015 5:00:05 GMT -5
So, you're telling me that, while they were an active unit, The Velvet Underground made millions, and received widespread popular mainstream critical acclaim?
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on Oct 11, 2015 8:49:26 GMT -5
Good post Anarkissed. There have been those goosebumps moments along the way for sure, and I've been truly happy to see the likes of VU, Tom Waits, etc get in.
At the same time - it's rock and roll, which to me is damn important, but not on the scale of voting for the leader of the free world, so I see your analogy, but let's keep things in perspective. It's not about some statement of self-importance or cooler-than-thou holy opinion, it's rock and roll.
My personal criteria is loose enough to consider Public Enemy or NWA because of their rebellious spirit, but also to be a little pissed when Janet Jackson (for Christ's sake) is uttered in the same breath as Deep Purple. I argue with my friends about it, but to me art isn't subjective at every level, and when you skip over a bunch of great, influential rock and roll to let in someone who's danced her way to fame over lip-synced tracks and programmed beats, well, that raises a credibility issue with the hall. It doesn't diminish your point or the reasons you embrace it - I embrace it too, but some of the crap they're throwing into the "rock and roll" bucket just makes it hard to defend sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by GtrPlyr on Oct 11, 2015 9:53:08 GMT -5
I think first off, one has to not take the “Rock and Roll” part of the name so literally. From the get-go, the hall has inducted everything from blues, soul, r&b, and country to folk, jazz and pop artists. So why not Rap and Hip-Hop too? None of these music styles are an island; rock and roll was influenced by blues, country and jazz. Hip-Hop was influenced by funk, soul, jazz and rock, and has over the years gone on to influence rock musicians. The whole thing is circular, all these genres feeding off each other, so I think of the hall as a catchall: “Modern Pop Music Hall of Fame.”
With that in mind, I have no issues with the hall inducting anything within the popular music realm, as long as the artist has some discernible impact, influence, or an undeniable canon of great music. Of course like anyone, I often question their picks: how is Green Day in before Harry Nilsson, Warren Zevon, The Replacements, Cheap Trick? Those of us that have followed the history of the hall are probably aware of the cronyism, bias and hidden agendas that permeate the hall decisions at times. The thing is far from perfect, and some could argue that the glaring omissions make it irrelevant. Valid arguments to be made for sure on that front. I look at it like I would the Grammy’s or the Oscars: not definitive takes on their respective fields by a long shot, but that doesn’t mean the art being honored is always without merit. All of these institutions kinda fall in the: sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't category for me.
|
|
markc
Dances With Posts
Posts: 82
|
Post by markc on Oct 11, 2015 19:41:41 GMT -5
I think first off, one has to not take the “Rock and Roll” part of the name so literally. From the get-go, the hall has inducted everything from blues, soul, r&b, and country to folk, jazz and pop artists. So why not Rap and Hip-Hop too? None of these music styles are an island; rock and roll was influenced by blues, country and jazz. Hip-Hop was influenced by funk, soul, jazz and rock, and has over the years gone on to influence rock musicians. The whole thing is circular, all these genres feeding off each other, so I think of the hall as a catchall: “Modern Pop Music Hall of Fame.” With that in mind, I have no issues with the hall inducting anything within the popular music realm, as long as the artist has some discernible impact, influence, or an undeniable canon of great music. Of course like anyone, I often question their picks: how is Green Day in before Harry Nilsson, Warren Zevon, The Replacements, Cheap Trick? Those of us that have followed the history of the hall are probably aware of the cronyism, bias and hidden agendas that permeate the hall decisions at times. The thing is far from perfect, and some could argue that the glaring omissions make it irrelevant. Valid arguments to be made for sure on that front. I look at it like I would the Grammy’s or the Oscars: not definitive takes on their respective fields by a long shot, but that doesn’t mean the art being honored is always without merit. All of these institutions kinda fall in the: sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't category for me. So then it really should be called to Popular Music hall of fame, or something similar. Rock and roll is a specific genre of music. I'm not buying this "spirit of rock and roll" thing. I mean, it makes as much sense as calling it the Rap Hall of Fame and including The Beatles |
|
|
|
Post by GtrPlyr on Oct 11, 2015 21:55:12 GMT -5
Rock and roll is a specific genre of music. I'm not buying this "spirit of rock and roll" thing. I mean, it makes as much sense as calling it the Rap Hall of Fame and including The Beatles Well, if we’re going to take the “Rock and Roll” part literally, we probably need to get rid of 95% of the bands and artists in there now. Few inductees are true Rock and Roll artists once you get past Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bill Haley, Bo Diddley, The Rolling Stones. etc. Woody Guthrie, The Supremes, Bill Monroe, The Drifters, Donna Summer all inductees, none are rock and roll. Do we give them a pass? Even a band like Nirvana, they may rock, but there is zero “roll” in their music. Do they get a pass? They already have genres such as bluegrass, country, disco, gospel, folk, soul, r&b and jazz represented, so why not rap and hip-hop too at this point? I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, but the Hall has been something other than "rock 'n' roll" for so long that it seems a bit late to get all nitpick-y with it. |
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 11, 2015 22:08:10 GMT -5
What is "rock and roll"? Does it have to be blues-based? Does it have to be electric? Is it confined to the guitar/bass/drums lineup? Does it have to have drums? I think you could even make an argument that Bill Haley was more swing than rock and roll, that Jerry Lee Lewis was closer to country than rock and roll, and that Chuck Berry was more rhythm and blues than rock and roll...I'm not sure I can even come up with any band that is "pure rock and roll", just because it seems like an intentionally vague term...The Beatles were more of a pop band than a rock and roll band...
|
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Oct 12, 2015 1:29:35 GMT -5
So, you're telling me that, while they were an active unit, The Velvet Underground made millions, and received widespread popular mainstream critical acclaim? No, I'm telling you that Sam & Dave sold over 10 million records while they were an active unit, making them the most successful soul duo in the history of music. VU is a non sequitur. But yes, Lou and VU most definitely had received their due, both monetarily and critically, prior to being inducted in the RRHoF. |
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 12, 2015 20:42:21 GMT -5
Sam & Dave may have sold over 10 million records, and I'm somebody made a lotta money, but I'd bet most of didn't go to Sam Moore...I used the example of The Velvet Underground just to show that the Hall has inducted artists who weren't big mainstream successes, or widely highly regarded, during their performing years...A lotta people know who Lou Reed is now; not so many in 1967...
|
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Oct 12, 2015 23:38:19 GMT -5
The Velvet Underground's success "during their performing years" was a goalpost that you moved to in order to not be wrong. But just to circle back and end this...you wrote something factually incorrect about Sam Moore ("[T]his guy never received much monetary compensation, and little critical acclaim, during his performing years") and I politely corrected you. Now you have another set of goalposts that you want to move with the claim (minus any evidence) that Sam & Dave didn't get "most" of the money from their record sales. Obviously they didn't get most of the money from their sales--artists never do--but what you didn't know was that Sam Moore has long been an active proponent of artist rights and fair compensation, something he fought tooth and nail for "during his performing years." He got paid. And he continues to get paid, because his performing years haven't ended. You really couldn't have picked a worse example if you were trying to paint Sam Moore as a forgotten, undercompensated relic.
|
|
|
|
Post by gowhileucan on Oct 13, 2015 5:34:35 GMT -5
The thread hasn't gone in this direction but I would say that if I had to put money on it, The 'Mats will get in eventually in the same way The Faces/Small Faces did - a long time after they first could have. Now Husker Du on the other hand, sadly I can't say the same about.
One of the big problems with the Hall (among many) is its voting principles contradict one of the basic proven truths of Rock music (or pop music even) - great bands/artists often have a brief shining moment and are often passed over in that moment and have their moment rewritten after the fact so that perspectives about them are always skewed in a larger sense. Which is why (among other reasons) that say the Stone Roses will never get in, the Dolls won't (heck, Thunders won't), I tend to doubt that Joy Division will etc.
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on Oct 13, 2015 7:12:21 GMT -5
...The Beatles were more of a pop band than a rock and roll band... If we're talking genres here, I'd say this isn't true at all. They were pop, in that they were hugely popular, but they were as rock and roll as any band has ever been. They are practically the definition of rock and roll. The defining of genres is a difficult one. You can put all sorts of things under the RnR umbrella, and their line is a bit wider than mine, but I guess it's theirs to make. While I do feel that too much weight is put on genre definition, I also find great enjoyment debating it. I still think NWA is more rock and roll than Janet Jackson. |
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 13, 2015 19:06:00 GMT -5
The Velvet Underground's success "during their performing years" was a goalpost that you moved to in order to not be wrong. But just to circle back and end this...you wrote something factually incorrect about Sam Moore ("[T]his guy never received much monetary compensation, and little critical acclaim, during his performing years") and I politely corrected you. Now you have another set of goalposts that you want to move with the claim (minus any evidence) that Sam & Dave didn't get "most" of the money from their record sales. Obviously they didn't get most of the money from their sales--artists never do--but what you didn't know was that Sam Moore has long been an active proponent of artist rights and fair compensation, something he fought tooth and nail for "during his performing years." He got paid. And he continues to get paid, because his performing years haven't ended. You really couldn't have picked a worse example if you were trying to paint Sam Moore as a forgotten, undercompensated relic. Calm down dude...I concede your point...I guess should have focused on what I really meant to say: that I saw a veteran guy performing at a high level, and obviously still enjoying doing it... |
|
patty
Second Class Scout
Posts: 37 
|
Post by patty on Oct 14, 2015 16:32:22 GMT -5
well, remember, ...'you got em all, on your walls, I'm the last of a dying breed..you ain't got me!'
|
|
