Author Topic: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame  (Read 4233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline splent

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 9348
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident music educator/conductor
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2016, 06:39:21 PM »
Yes should've been in years ago. I remember when they were nominated first and there was a fan poll (like when Rush was nominated) and they were beating everyone by a shitton percent and they still didn't get in. Jan Wenner is so fucking anti-prog that I'm shocked that Rush and Genesis even got in.

I don’t know what to put here anymore

Offline Outcrier

  • Posts: 3904
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2016, 06:43:11 PM »
Why did you pick Iron Maiden for the 1970s? There's some debate about weather or not their first album was released in 1979 or 1980, but other than that their first few several, best-known, and probably most popular albums are very much a product of the '80s.

I picked based on the decade they formed, which was the 70s (1975).
« Last Edit: April 10, 2016, 07:04:40 PM by Outcrier »
Outcrier: Toughest cop on the force.

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2016, 06:45:22 PM »
They were some good picks Outcrier.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2016, 08:13:10 PM »
Yes should've been in years ago. I remember when they were nominated first and there was a fan poll (like when Rush was nominated) and they were beating everyone by a shitton percent and they still didn't get in. Jan Wenner is so fucking anti-prog that I'm shocked that Rush and Genesis even got in.

I think Genesis only got in because of their pop success in the 80s, and Rush only got in recently because the mainstream and critics finally came around to giving them their proper credit, so they probably felt like they had to let them in.  Regardless, Jan Wenner can suck a fatty.

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2016, 11:30:11 PM »
If you don't care why make a thread? :lol

Well all have a beef about who makes it and who doesn't.  That hack owner from Rolling Stone who runs this can suck it for all I care.

If by "this" you mean the "hall" itself, I heartily AGREE with you! I had forgotten about that. Rolling Stone has always been VERY anti-prog, at least until recently, and also pretty much late to the game or conveniently unaware when it comes to metal. It usually seems that if it it isn't hippie music, new wave, or rap, they don't want to deal with it.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2016, 08:56:36 AM »
Now, if you could, what artists/bands would you guys induct?

I would pick one from each decade (based on the decade they formed), only exception being the 70s:

60s - King Crimson
70s - The Cure
70s - Iron Maiden
80s - The Smiths
90s - Pearl Jam

Agree with Crimson (that Fripp isn't in there is a travesty)'

Maiden is an '80's band; their debut came out in 1980 (they didn't even record those versions of those songs until January of 1980) and The Cure are more rightfully an 80's band, too, since their debut was in October of '79 but their first real splash of success was in the '80's.

Pearl Jam will be first ballot and one of the few that actually deserve that honor.

What, pray, did The Smiths do to merit that honor?   Duran Duran is far more deserving, in my view, as are The Cars.  Though perhaps The Smiths get in for the influence of Johnny Marr on the Manchester scene of the 90's.  But this is a discussion much like that of the Talking Heads.  If they don't get in on influence, there's not much more to advocate for them.
 

Offline Outcrier

  • Posts: 3904
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #41 on: April 11, 2016, 09:25:14 AM »
I already said i picked bands based on the decade they formed.

Smiths is a similar case as Talking Heads: classic bands who released many classic albums, simple as that.

And Talking Heads already are inducted.
Outcrier: Toughest cop on the force.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2016, 09:45:39 AM »
I already said i picked bands based on the decade they formed.

Sorry; I don't read all the posts then post; I hit reply and respond.  No big deal; no one is grading this (though with the criteria of "25 years from first release, that might be a better common starting point). 


Quote
Smiths is a similar case as Talking Heads: classic bands who released many classic albums, simple as that.

And Talking Heads already are inducted.

So is Laura Nyro and it's well documented that most of those Sire Records bands (read:  most of those late 70's/early 80's quasi-new wave, post-punk bands, like the Ramones, the Talking Heads, The Pretenders, Blondie) were given undue consideration because of the input (read:  strong arm influence) of the President of Sire Records, Seymour Stein.   He's tried to get credit for the name "New Wave", since many of those bands sought to have some distance from the pure punk scene.   It should be noted that The Smiths were on Sire as well.


That's one of my beefs with the Hall; you have that whole scene with second and third tier bands being inducted (same with the "California Rock" scene of the Eagles, Jackson Browne, etc.) and you have whole other genres - prog and metal - where basically you get the handful of stadium acts that cannot be denied (AC/DC, Van Halen, Floyd, Genesis).  Fuck, Laura Nyro is more famous for dating Jackson Browne than she is for any of her songs!

Offline Outcrier

  • Posts: 3904
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2016, 10:37:22 AM »
I don't really care about this second or third tier bands that are categorized based on if they fill stadiums or just a pub, i care about the quality of their discography. Both Smiths and Talking Heads have a stellar discography, far better than many that already are in the Hall. That's enough for me.

Hm... Most of the bands you mentioned deserve to be in it, regardless if they were given "unique consideration". I know there are bands like Iron Maiden that deserve to be on it more than Pretenders or Blondie, but i doesn't make these two undeserving.

(god, that was a lot of "deserve")
« Last Edit: April 11, 2016, 10:48:59 AM by Outcrier »
Outcrier: Toughest cop on the force.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2016, 11:51:52 AM »
I don't really care about this second or third tier bands that are categorized based on if they fill stadiums or just a pub, i care about the quality of their discography. Both Smiths and Talking Heads have a stellar discography, far better than many that already are in the Hall. That's enough for me.

Hm... Most of the bands you mentioned deserve to be in it, regardless if they were given "unique consideration". I know there are bands like Iron Maiden that deserve to be on it more than Pretenders or Blondie, but i doesn't make these two undeserving.

(god, that was a lot of "deserve")

Hahaha; deservedly so.  ;)

But let me ask you this, independent of any one band:  what constitutes a "stellar discography"?  Can one put out one album and have it be a "stellar discography"?   What about the Stones or Hank Williams, Jr. (not rock, but I needed an example), who both have something like 50 studio albums, some which are classic (Stinky Fingers, The Pressure Is On) and some that are - politely put - not?

Isn't there a degree to which popular acceptance is a measure of that stellar discography?  I think that is kind of the knock on the Hall, especially early on; you got the critical darlings The Yardbirds and The Velvet Underground but no AC/DC or Genesis?   It's REALLY hard to argue "stellar discography" and put IN the Yardbirds and keep OUT Genesis.   

This is why the Hall fails; they are too inconsistent for their own good.  Forget about "likes" and "dislikes" for a minute; King Crimson literally covers all bases.   They were the first real "prog" band.  They haven't sold shit for records.  They haven't had a hit single.   They touch - in one form or fashion - every other major prog band except Floyd.  They have crossed genres (Wetton: Asia; Fripp: Gabriel and Hall; Burrell: Bad Company; McDonald: Foreigner).  I mean, they could have put Crim in 10 years ago and NEVER had to answer the "prog" question ever again.  But they didn't.  This leads me to believe that the "stellar discography" isn't enough. 

Offline masterthes

  • Posts: 3975
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2016, 12:22:43 PM »
Do you think the movie might have had something to do with why NWA was inducted?

Offline chaossystem

  • We're on to your agenda, the dead-end road to nowhere.
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • Chapters unfinished, fading
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2016, 12:23:47 PM »
I already said i picked bands based on the decade they formed.

Smiths is a similar case as Talking Heads: classic bands who released many classic albums, simple as that.

And Talking Heads already are inducted.

I just looked up "eligibility for Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," And it DOES say 25 years after the release of a band or artist's first album. So unless you count The Sound House Tapes (1979) Iron Maiden would probably be classified as a band that didn't release their first album until 1980, which is how THEY gauge it, making them eligible in 2005.

I also want to clarify something I said earlier, when I talked about "having it my way." I was referring to the fact that DREAM THEATER released their first album in 1989, which made them eligible in 2014.
Deep Purple put their debut album out in 1968, which made them eligible in 1993.
I can't stop the world from turning around, or the pull of the moon on the tide, but I don't believe that we're in this alone, I believe we're along for the ride...

Offline Outcrier

  • Posts: 3904
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2016, 12:33:42 PM »
I just looked up "eligibility for Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," And it DOES say 25 years after the release of a band or artist's first album. So unless you count The Sound House Tapes (1979) Iron Maiden would probably be classified as a band that didn't release their first album until 1980, which is how THEY gauge it, making them eligible in 2005.

I also want to clarify something I said earlier, when I talked about "having it my way." I was referring to the fact that DREAM THEATER released their first album in 1989, which made them eligible in 2014.
Deep Purple put their debut album out in 1968, which made them eligible in 1993.

I know that. What's the problem?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2016, 01:06:49 PM by Outcrier »
Outcrier: Toughest cop on the force.

Offline Anguyen92

  • Posts: 4554
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2016, 12:45:55 PM »
Do you think the movie might have had something to do with why NWA was inducted?

Oh yeah, absolutely.  Brings good press for the Straight Outta Compton movie, and to their Hall of Fame.  Might as well strike now while the viability is out for the time being to benefit from.

Offline Outcrier

  • Posts: 3904
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2016, 01:07:01 PM »
This leads me to believe that the "stellar discography" isn't enough.

Well, but then bands like Velvet Underground and Stooges wouldn't be inducted either.

Summing up: who knows how the damn Hall works  :rollin
Outcrier: Toughest cop on the force.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2016, 02:07:52 PM »
This leads me to believe that the "stellar discography" isn't enough.

Well, but then bands like Velvet Underground and Stooges wouldn't be inducted either.

I think the former SHOULD have been without question, but the second... it could be debated.  I can make the argument both ways.

Quote
Summing up: who knows how the damn Hall works  :rollin

This is the one unassailable truth in this entire thread.   Full stop.   

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2016, 02:30:37 PM »
The fact that we make fun of the RaRHoF process but then argue about which artists are worthy between a small group of people is exactly why I have never cared about music (or movie) awards.

I can't even decide my top 10 artists.  I can't even decide my top 10 songs, albums.  And that's a judge of one.

Throw in all the politics, snubbing,  race/gender hand wringing, style definitions and whatever else, that's just icing on the cake of a concept that has problems at its foundation.

Offline Anguyen92

  • Posts: 4554
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2016, 03:04:37 PM »
The fact that we make fun of the RaRHoF process but then argue about which artists are worthy between a small group of people is exactly why I have never cared about music (or movie) awards.

I can't even decide my top 10 artists.  I can't even decide my top 10 songs, albums.  And that's a judge of one.

Throw in all the politics, snubbing,  race/gender hand wringing, style definitions and whatever else, that's just icing on the cake of a concept that has problems at its foundation.

I think, to put it all in layman's terms, to sum up your whole post that I agree on.  All of this, The Grammys, this Hall of Fame, other awards.  It is all one big giant pissing match and ego-stroking that does not contribute to anything.  At all.  Imo.  These are the reasons why I do not care for Hall of Fames like WWE's version of it and it is just hair-pulling to read people's thoughts like, "But, but, this guy deserves to go in.  Why does he do not get in, but this other guy does get in?"

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2016, 06:19:35 PM »
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2016, 09:25:42 PM »
Steve Miller may be my new hero.

Offline Anguyen92

  • Posts: 4554
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2016, 12:30:05 AM »
All right, it is agreed.  Gene Simmons will accept NWA in this hall of fame as long as Led Zeppelin gets into the rap hall of fame.

https://411mania.com/music/gene-simmons-will-agree-with-nwa-hall-of-fame-induction-when-led-zeppelin-gets-in-rap-hall-of-fame/

Quote
Cube - I stand by my words. Respect NWA, but when Led Zep gets into Rap Hall of Fame, I will agree with your point.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2016, 07:34:53 AM »
Didn't have a huge problem with this year's inductees, other than Cheap Trick.  I will never see them as a first-rate band deserving of Hall of Fame status, especially given some of the acts that aren't in the Hall yet.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43016
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2016, 08:48:50 AM »
I think I understand why you say that, but I know for me, Cheap Trick embodies what music is all about.   Hits, not hits, self-written, song-writing factory written, live, studio... they've been through it all.   I've seen them in arenas and in a small club, and they are just pros.   They are one of the few bands out there that can probably play anything from their catalogue at any time.   Eddie Trunk famously gave them a 'dream setlist' and they went up on stage and played it. 

They do it because they love it, they do it to a high level, and they do it with a passion.   Hard to knock.