Delete This Account

i really hope you're not making the case now that Rush is greater than the Stones. that's silly. and you're basing your knock on the Velvet Underground because they had one gold album? so. a case could be made that without the Velvet Underground there would be no Bowie, likely no New York Dolls or Ramones, or Television, perhaps the Talking Heads and Blondie. without Rush there'd be well ... the Sex Pistols were invented by a bit of a poser, who may not have actually realized what he had started -- or maybe did -- by putting together a collection of misfits who started off being more style than substance and then kind of ended up the other way by accident. perhaps where we differ is what rock and roll stands for. it's not about meeting 4 criteria. rock and roll is not for beancounters, it's for bloodletters. and to suggest that "any kid" can figure out the Ramones is blindly wrong. thousands of bands are formed each year, whether it's because of American Idol or four kids bored to tears. a lot -- a large majority of them -- fall by the wayside because they lack talent, cohesion or that simple je ne sais quois. a few make it. and a few less click so wonderfully that they transcend themselves. it wasn't easy being the Ramones. it wasn't easy being the Stones in their heyday. take a look at how many times Aerosmith have unraveled. that the Beatles lasted that long was amazing. you seem to pretend that rock and roll is as easy as paint by numbers. it's not. not even close. the ability to put words to music and make something vibrant is difficult. if it wasn't, then everybody'd be doing it. they're not. and if that's the case you continue to make for Rush, then you've truly lost me. jw i think so. but in fear of pontificating, why don't you give them a spin. start with Tim, and then go to Let it Be. as far as i'm concerned, there are few that have been able to capture the frustrations of disenchantment and detachment -- the common yearns of itchy youth -- than what these albums -- and Pleased to Meet Me and Hootenany -- have to offer. jw

see, and there's where there's a difference. as much as there is subjectivity to music, there also is required an objectivity in one's approach in which you have to remove your own feelings from the equation. if there is an agreement that the Mona Lisa is a classic piece of art, then why can't the same be equated to rock and roll. and thus, in hindsight, i believe there is an agreement that Led Zepplin, the Rolling Stones, the Clash are great because of what they contributed to the culture of rock and roll. there would be no rock and roll without the early blues masters or Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash and what Sun Studios inspired. those, then are great, as well. i take no issue with people liking bands or liking music. that part is subjective and formed through personal connections. but to suggest that subjectivity trumps all when it comes to attempting to determine who is Hall of Fame worthy and who is not, well, then that argument falls apart because, obviously, objectivity needs to enter the picture. i like the Donnas, yet i don't think they're Hall-Worthy. i like the 'Mats, and i hope and believe they would reject any attempt to induct them. and i hope they never are. and i don't care what anyone says about them. they're good. period. and i'm not suggesting the minutemen or husker du or camper get in either. but to forget them or dismiss them as three-chord wonders and "bands no one's every heard of influencing bands know one's ever heard of," is to fail to understand how we got here. the Jam certainly played a role. the Cure did, too, though unfortunately they and The Smiths might have sparked this whole emo-movement, but that's not their fault. the Pixies without a doubt belong. and without question, Steve Earle should be regarded among the elite in his craft. hands down. i'm not a big fan of Yes, and yet i think they belong. i'm actually a bigger fan of Rush than Yes, and i don't think Rush belongs ... not now. much is debatable, but some things aren't, which is why we're having this discussion. jw

that's the point. i'm arguing against several of the hall of fame's selections. i can't explain Madonna's inclusion. and i don't understand your note in regards to: "Some people like music that isn't three chords and lyrics about banging some chick or shooting heroin." to what bands are you referring to. it's certainly not Cheap Trick. it's not entirely Steve Earle. it's certainly not entirely the 'Mats. it's not the Cure nor the Jam, either. i also happen to like the Stones and the Clash, and at what point do they fall into this category. and either come up with a fact-based argument, rather than attempt some throw-away nonsensical line. that's lazy. and to Chef: i might pontificate and come off as a superior snob. and yet, when it comes to some of these comments, such as this one above, it's difficult to resist pontificating. another point, i know a thing or two about music, but that pales to Astrojanitor, in my opinion. as for Styx, a very good case could be made for their inclusion into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame now that Rush has been inducted. Styx took music in an entirely different direction and, in its early stages, was a true rock and roll band. and from the Rush folks, i'm still awaiting to hear an answer to why Rush gets in before Yes. that's a little astounding. but what do i know, listening to three chords and a chick-banger.sheesh. jw

i am, and fully acknowledge it. thanks. by the way, going through the list of those bands inducted, and thus seeing the omissions, i am shocked that Rush is in ahead of Yes. now, there's something wrong with that. jw

ABBA is a pop band. and a good one at that. but they don't deserve to be there because they're not rock. that doesn't discount their wonderful talent. neither does Madonna belong, or Mellencamp (not ahead of Tom Petty), Genesis or the Pretenders. your defense of Rush essentially goes like this: "I like them. Lots of people like them. To hell with those who don't like their banshee wailing and tepid song lyrics." pardon me if i missed something, but you seem to want to make this personal, while i don't. i get rush. i don't dislike them. Rush isn't bad. they're just in my opinion not Hall-worthy today. i used to really like them as a kid. saw them two or three times in concert in fact. front row at "the Joe" once. and then i grew up. and what is all this about "world's biggest cult band." what does this all mean in the big picture? i don't know if i'd want to be associated with a cult, to begin with. and good for them that they've enjoyed plenty of success. if Rush gets in, why not Styx. a case could certainly be made for them, no? your case had been well presented until you wrote this: "Yet you keep responding with a bunch of bands most people haven't heard of who have largely influenced bands that nobody knows. Ultimately, this is a RnR Hall of FAME we're discussing here, right?" you've never heard of the Faces? you've never heard of the Jam? The Cure? Steve Earle? Cheap Trick (Astro, you've got me on board). as for the 'mats, minutemen, husker du, dead kennedy's and camper van beethoven influencing "bands that nobody knows," i guess you're suggesting you've never heard of Nirvana or what became grunge. yikes. gee, i'm not sure what to say about that. but of course, i'm the one being accused of being intellectually dishonest. oh, for cripes sake, the Pixies aren't even in. really? Rush might one day belong. but that day is not today. there have been far too many wrongs made, and a near entire generation of bands nearly completely overlooked, groups and artists who have done far more in pushing modern music forward in the true spirit of rock and roll than a mere niche trio that could hit all the notes and engaged the imaginations of youth who spent the 1970s and early 80s closeted in their basements, where some still, apparently, remain. jw

i can do that. and i will. you suggest that the rock and roll hall of fame should have some kind of push-button incentive program. bands should stick around for a long time, have influence, hit the right notes and be excellent. well, that rules out the clash on two counts as well as the sex pistols. and heaven forbid we mention the ramones. these rules aren't rock and roll, they're put forth by bean-counting arbitors that have nothing to do with the spirit of the noise. heck, muddy waters doesn't belong, nor do many of the early so-called blues masters. by your standard, it's only a matter of time that creed gets in because they influenced nickleback. world's biggest cult band, somehow i doubt that. and you're trying to have it both ways, so pardon me if i call bullcrap. because how can you write in one post Third most consecutive gold or platinum albums behind only the Beatles and the Stones. Commercial success check." and now attempt to make the case that they're somehow some unknown gem. i have no problem with people liking rush, it's the evangelical nature of their "believing" i find hard to justify or put up with it. and here's my problem, there are far too many bands and artists with far more depth and influence that are not in the Hall of Fame who belong there well ahead of rush. need i go down the list: Steve Earle The Boxtops/Chilton/Big Star Cheap Trick, for heavens sake. heck, i don't think The Jam's in there. The Cure's not in there. and let me get this straight, Joan Jett and the Black'heads' are in, but the Runaways aren't? for cripe's sakes: THE JAM! the Faces aren't in ... and let's not even start with America's misfits -- the mats, campers, minutemen, huskers, dead kennedy's -- who carried the torch of rock and roll through the 80s. nothing, nada. like rush all you want, just don't pretend that they've suddenly been legitimized because they're heading to cleveland. jw

that's right. my mistake on nirvana. Earle belongs. a case could be made for the Monkees, but i'm on the fence. ... Nesmith i get for his early work in video, but wasn't what's-his-name behind the writing of most of the songs ... and yes, i'm too lazy to look it up because i gotta go. as for Cheap Trick, a band near and dear to my heart. saw them live three times in the 80s. as a fun band, without a doubt. as an important band, possible. Surrender would certainly go into my singles hall of fame. "California Man" simply a great rock and roll song. mean and cool. ... Dream Police the album is dated (sadly). ... a great garage band before there was such a thing. but i'm on the fence there. i'd need a just a little more persuading. jw

not going to convince me different. Rush isn't terrrible, they're quaint. 1) commercial success is something reserved for people's choice awards and the grammy's: it shouldn't be a criterion for induction into the hall. 2) touring in support of an album, means they just put out an album and they're touring. this gets me nowhere. The Clash stopped touring, and yet they're in. the Rolling Stones are "touring," who cares. i don't. doesn't take away what they've done. Mickey Dolenz is touring, still, i believe. he should stop, but that doesn't mean the Monkees belong. 3) peers. i guess. Steve Earle's been paid tribute by his peers in song and in covers, and that i don't think has gotten him a sniff at anything. and i think Steve Earle will forever be more relevant than Rush. 4) Nirvana named its first album "Nevermind" after a replacements song. ... as for smashing pumpkins, pantera, soundgarden, they don't qualify for me as belonging in any elite rock and roll hall of fame. i'm sure the members of nickleback credit Rush, too, given their canadian roots. 5) the dave matthews band is accomplished, as was supertramp and genesis. so? it's the rock and roll hall of fame, not the rock and roll hall of accomplished. if that were the case, Toto would be in it -- though, i'm not sure, they might already be for cripes' sake. see, i'm not even sure Cheap Trick belongs, as much as i like them. i'm not saying i don't outright dislike Rush. i just don't know if they belong. because if they do, why not induct Asia. ... in fact, Yes belongs in the hall, and i'm not a big Yes man, to pardon the pun. jw

trust me, the one great pilgrimage all music lovers need to do is head down Memphis. there is something very vibrant still going on there, where much of what we're listening today -- the good, especially, and some bad -- all began. and there's so much depth there that you can actually overlook some of the schmaltz of Beale Street and graceland. in fact, i had one of the best conversations about music -- referencing Alex Chilton among many -- in a bar on Beale which made the place even more memorable. jw

well, if you want to base it on longevity, i guess rush is in. what genre they represent is a more apt question to me. though technically sound, they're odes to red borshetta's kind of leave me lost in its insincerity. that said, they seem to have captured and reflected the cold concrete fourth-rate metropolis of a city they hail from. to me, they made it somehow despite themselves, kind of like genesis and its odd fairy tale odes. they sold records, and yet, is that what makes rock and roll the vibrant mess that it was and remains? i don't think so. and that's my opinion. this isn't a modern music hall of fame. this is the Rock and Roll hall of fame. and there is a distinction, i think, when i think of what defines rock and roll. it's Elvis being filmed from the waist up so his hip-shake swivel isn't broadcast. it's what the Rolling Stones did in bridging the past and what's still the present with Exile. it's everything that Joe Strummer did, and Keith Richards pumped into his veins. and it's the 'Mats being banned from Saturday Night Live for refusing to follow Lorne Michaels' orders and going ahead and swearing on live TV. it's not three guys standing on a stage, impersonally and with no connection to the crowd in some big arena, going on in some high-pitched squeal about tom sawyer. the Tragically Hip have done far more in pushing music forward with their unique grumble than most any Canadian artist has done this side of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell. but that's just me. jw

i have been to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and it was quite a whelming experience. it was like 6 years ago, and i've really found no reason to go back. they had some big homage to U2, on the top floor, which i didn't care for. i'm a bit over-bonoed, and zooropa was a joke. the interactive displays they had in the main entrance were pretty cool, and i was quite excited to see one reference to The Replacements. as for the rest, there was a lot of good and bad to it. the worst was the poor and over-priced selection of CDs in the gift shop. gouge city, which was enough for me to know this stood as a monument to corporate stooges than it did to Iggy and the Stooges. that, however, was not my point. my point was not what's inside the actual hall of fame, it's the parade of middling, average acts that they continue to allow in to water down the place's credibility for the sake of making a fast buck. i won't deny that U2, based on its first four or five albums doesn't belong. but the more rush's and b52s they bring in, the less space there is for what truly belongs in what should be a rock and roll hall of fame. hey, i listened to rush. i've even got several of their albums. my first concert was a rush show back in 1979. and i like the b52s, as well. that doesn't make them hall-worthy. heck, it doesn't even mean i think they're good as opposed to palatable. trouble is, they're letting everybody and their pet lizard in these days. jw oh, in regards to if the 'Mats get in, i can't see that happening. and if by the off-chance they do, i truly hope and believe that they'll turn it down. i cannot see Paul showing up.

i understand your point of view Astro, and yet this is a so-called hall of fame that need not have gone the route of a Times Square tourist trap (which now just happens to be the one place in NYC that i avoid). if the powers that be refused to sell out -- much like many of the artists they've inducted -- then it could well stand up as a reputable place for those of us who carry the Rock and Roll finger-in-the-air flag to visit. and yet, much like the corporate-infused music industry and its ultra-grammification of money over taste, it's went the other way. it's become nearly everything that rock isn't, and should be shunned, despised and villified. and yet, it had potential. of course i'm romanticizing here. but there are places -- though few -- that have found a more balanced approach to filling its walls without dreck and sugary fluff. the Pro Football Hall of Fame is considered hallow ground for football fans because it's difficult to get in. and the wonder of Sun Studios in Memphis is because it is not a shrine to Elvis, but a tribute to all the people who went through that building. heck, Memphis also has the Civil Rights Museum, which goes beyond MLK. it's sad but no surprise that what they built in Cleveland has become a pure and utter joke. but to say you don't get the hate for it, well, to not hate it is to accept it, and i hope to never get there, ever. jw

the first thought that strikes me of this teaming is "nevermind." the second thought that strikes me is, it certainly smells like desperation. jw

who's next, Triumph or Max Webster in this parade of bands into a so-called "hall of fame" that is quickly coming to resemble a hall of middling accomplishments, and tributes to longevity. perhaps another tire fire is in order in cleveland, or perhaps it's time to push the pyramid into Lake Erie and let it sink. i want my rock and roll back. at this rate, coldplay should be inducted in 4 years. jw

can't see this happening. and i especially don't see this happening if Buddy and Chan come back. and i think they're coming back. jw

Jim: just saw the pinned thread. i took no offense to you calling me a drunk here in PPP. i'd wish i can remember the time it happened but, well, you know ... heh. let me be clear, and i've had a couple of swigs here after a long arduous day that included some relieving good personal news ... i've never reported anyone for going after me. this is a free speech board, and i do believe in that right. and as big as a blowhard as i might be, i would never begrudge anyone from having their say. i'll take offense to it, but i'm both capable and incapable of handling my own battles. and i don't recall ever feeling insulted by you. ... i could be wrong of course ... cheers. as for the rest of you right-wingers, well ... jw

how, exactly, do you know this? jw

why, is he looking for a new and/or used car? jw

slow down folks. Chris Mohr mentioned this to me today at the Monday QB luncheon, noting that he ran into Tressel over the weekend at Ilio DiPaolo's on saturday. turns out Tressel is close to one of the DiPaolo boys as they went to school together and was in town for the weekend. guess they hang out together a lot. jw

a couple of potential reasons are referred to lower in this AP story. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/losing-frustrating-tie-binds-jaguars-lb-posluszny-return-213035286--nfl.html?two-bills-drive jw

hey, i'm a professional. i know the risks going in. jw

this is Buffalo, man. no such thing. jw

i'll humbly disagree. have tried both and i remain partial to the Dinosaur, not that Sticky Lips is at all bad, but ... as for BWs and other popular Buffalo joints, feh. for some reason, have difficulty finding good places in town. ... the best used to be a little joint called Donnies on Jefferson, but that's since closed. jw

barbill is very good, and not too far. jw

see we do agree when i narrow down your point to this one word. trent had it, too. all i'm suggesting is that after one game we all hold off the superlatives and not yet buy into all the hype. it was one game. one. it was not the super bowl. he's not headed into the hall of fame just yet. i don't even know if the comparisons to RGIII are fair. good god, it was one game. jw