Archive

2010 Rock N Roll HOF Inductees

  • SQ_Crazies
    darbypitcher22 wrote: You don't sell 70 million albums if you don't have one or two hits somewhere along the line.....
    Devo had a hit with Whip It too lol.

    But you're right, they had a handful of hits--70 million albums with only a handful of hits=marketing genius.
  • Upper90
    Darby, I think the big argument with KISS, and I agree, is that they were sooooo much into quantity over quality, in short. I can't argue against that, Gene Simmons is the king of mass marketing simplicity.

    It seems that the HOF frowns on that, and while I can't blame them, at some point I still do feel like you've gotta let those guys in.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Kiss will definitely get in at some point.
  • enigmaax
    ccrunner609 wrote:
    enigmaax wrote:From what I've seen, the most common estimate for Kiss' record sales is about 70 million records. That is in a class with New Kids on the Block, Meat Loaf, and Kenny G.

    So if this is a criteria, whats the Ramones doing in the HOF? They sold less then 10 million. THeir music was horrible, my kids sound better on the Wii.
    I didn't say that is the exclusive criteria. Originally I pointed out that Abba is in a very exclusive group as far as record sales goes. With the company they're keeping in that regard it isn't difficult to see why they are in.

    You then said that if it was about record sales, then Kiss should be in. If it were as simple as Kiss' record sales making them deserving, then you'd have to include a lot of other (I named just a few) artists that I don't think you'd necessarily argue for. Basically, I was just saying that Kiss' album sales didn't set them apart in the way Abba's did.

    For the record, I think Kiss is deserving, but at the same time I don't find it to be a travesty that they aren't in yet (or that they aren't in over Band A or Band B, etc.).
  • dsjfan
    ccrunner609 wrote: Cheap trick should never get into the Hall of fame.
    Why not, they are a great band.

    The Cars and Meat Loaf need be in the HOF as well
  • darbypitcher22
    KISS did a lot of things to revolutionize the record industry... nobody had considered doing a Live album before they did; now you're not anybody until you do a live album
  • charliehustle14
    Yeah pretty ridiculous. The Sex Pistols called it a piss stain and didn't even attend their own induction because they, along with everyone else, knows it's a borderline joke anymore.

    I read that there are petitions signed by thousands of people every year in favor of a certain band to be nominated, and they all basically just get thrown away without consideration. Why even have a Hall of Fame if you aren't going to listen to the fans and instead, carry on with your own agenda?

    Kiss, Journey, Def, Bad Company, Nirvana, Collins, and Rush should all get in...but at this rate, it'll be a long time before that happens.

    The 20 years as a band thing is such a crock of crap. Hendrix wasn't an artist for that long...hell, he died at 27. Same with Joplin. Led Zeppelin was active for what, 12 years?(til Bonham died.) Despite not being 20+ years, they were all great musicians who couldn't be denied the HOF. But it's like whenever the Hall wants to, they pull out the 20+ years card to deny certain acts.
  • enigmaax
    So I see a lot of complaints and random names and the term "great" being thrown around. I'm interested to know what your criteria is (open request to anyone). What makes an artist great?

    I get the interest in Rush even though I personally don't find them to be anything spectacular. I understand Kiss for the way they marketed themselves. But, Cheap Trick is a great band? The Moody Blues? Everyone can't be great because the more you put in that category, the less value the term has.

    What do you think this should be based on?
  • KnightXC1
    The whole probelm with that place now is that they need to have "cool" acts going in to spark interest. It is no longer the Rock and Roll hall of fame but the mucis hall of fame. They should just change the name because so many artists that go in now were not rock and roll groups. Place sucks anyways.
  • SQ_Crazies
    KnightXC1 wrote: The whole probelm with that place now is that they need to have "cool" acts going in to spark interest. It is no longer the Rock and Roll hall of fame but the mucis hall of fame. They should just change the name because so many artists that go in now were not rock and roll groups. Place sucks anyways.
    Agree on all points.
  • KnightXC1
    ^^ Mark down the date, we agree on something! ;)
  • Upper90
    I'm not sure if it's ever been the "Rock & Roll" hall of fame. Even the first class inducted Sam Cooke, James Brown, and Fats Domino, and only Fats even teetered on the edge of Rock and Roll. Sam Cooke was about as straight of a soul singer as it gets.

    I wouldn't care if they changed the name, or didn't...It was based on the foundation that all music stems from R&R, and that in and of itself is debatable.
  • SQ_Crazies
    The guy that coined the phrase rock and roll is from Salem. They should move it here ;)
  • pmoney25
    I'm pretty sure the requirement is 25 years when your first record was released.

    To me great means
    1. Talent
    2.Contribution to music
    3. Influence on future bands
    4. Originality
    5. Long lasting success

    While popular doesn't equal great, it has to be considered in certain cases.
  • rentilrebo
    So did I read the Stooges are finally getting in?

    Now the MC5 need to get in and I'll be happy.
  • charliehustle14
    Upper90 wrote: I'm not sure if it's ever been the "Rock & Roll" hall of fame. Even the first class inducted Sam Cooke, James Brown, and Fats Domino, and only Fats even teetered on the edge of Rock and Roll. Sam Cooke was about as straight of a soul singer as it gets.

    I wouldn't care if they changed the name, or didn't...It was based on the foundation that all music stems from R&R, and that in and of itself is debatable.
    That's when it comes down to influences. Cooke and Brown were definitely more soul and pop singers....which are two of the three major genres that rock and roll was founded upon (the other being blues). Without soul, pop, and blues....there is no rock and roll.

    I have no problem with other genres earning their way into the RR HOF. I just disagree with some of the picks that are going in as I feel there are other musicians that are more deserving that have done more for rock and roll. Madonna, for example, is widely acclaimed and highly popular. She is also a pop singer. Despite pop being one of the roots of rock and roll, I fail to see her impact on the rock and roll landscape.
  • charliehustle14
    pmoney25 wrote: I'm pretty sure the requirement is 25 years when your first record was released.

    To me great means
    1. Talent
    2.Contribution to music
    3. Influence on future bands
    4. Originality
    5. Long lasting success

    While popular doesn't equal great, it has to be considered in certain cases.
    Yeah I believe you're right. 25 years from the first album sounds right. People on here talking about how you have to be together 20+ years confused me, but I should have known better.

    I also agree with your criteria.
  • killdeer
    pmoney25 wrote: Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where, uh, Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as, uh, anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your ass. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and, uh, Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
    The great things about opinions is...everybody has one, and everybody believes they are right!....Having said that...I have the EXACT polar- opposite opinion of Genesis...the Peter Gabriel years were interesting and ground-breaking ("Lamb Lies Down...etc.) much like Gabriel's solo work...and Phil Collins = the most derivitive and unoriginal pablum-spouting fat-headed "rockstar" to claim title to that dubious post.
    Just my opinion.......
  • killdeer
    pmoney25 wrote: I'm pretty sure the requirement is 25 years when your first record was released.

    To me great means
    1. Talent
    2.Contribution to music
    3. Influence on future bands
    4. Originality
    5. Long lasting success

    While popular doesn't equal great, it has to be considered in certain cases.
    The even more interesting thing...is that I fully agree with this assessment...and completely use these parameters as a reason to exclude Phil Collins... as one of the most talentless, derivitive, uninfluential, unoriginal, and transient fat rock stars in history. Ironic!
  • hasbeen
    SQ_Crazies wrote:
    Upper90 wrote: Why would LL not be considered for the HOF?

    Because it's the ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME.
    Ok I stopped reading at this point. I think you need to take a rock and roll history course. Rock and roll came from country western pop and r&b. all of the genres now sprang from rock and roll. So, yeah.
  • Upper90
    LOL, Killdeer, not a Phil Collins fan, I take it?

    Na, I actually mostly agree on the Genesis tip. I love Gabriel era Genesis, like, REALLY love it.

    I don't HATE the Phil Collins stuff, I just kind of like a song here or there (I like "The Brazilian" a lot....but it's also an instrumental, so I suppose that's not exactly a ringing endorsement....), and when I think about records like "Duke" and "Abacab".....yikes.

    Where I differ from you is that I can tolerate at least 2 Collins solo records, however if I was comparing solo careers (him vs. Gabriel), I do think that Gabriel took more risks, and had a lot of success in doing so, with his solo career.
  • osudarby08
    THEY NEED RUSH IN THE HOF BEFORE ANYONE ELSE!!!! They were so innovative, and honestly I can't believe how they still get shunned every year. And RHCP not getting in their first ballot is a joke considering all they have done for music.
  • Elliot Stabler
    How Jimmy Buffett is not in still stuns me.
  • pmoney25
    In case anyone doesn't know my assessment of genesis/Phil collins was a scene in the movie American psycho with Christian bale.

    Great movie
  • Tim Tebow
    Kiss should get in. And, RHCP are still around and kicking.. they will get in when all is said and done.