Rush inducted into the RnR Hall of Fame!

[Philly McButterpants]

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

 

Some people like music that isn't three chords and lyrics about banging some chick or shooting heroin.

 

To each their own. If you don't like it, great. Different strokes for different folks. Personally, i think your opinion rates with what I flush away every morning. You don't get them . . . We get it. Stop acting like it's an affront to humanity.

 

BTW, that's likely the first (and last) time someone mentioned Rush in the same breath as the B52's . . .

 

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.

 

 

jw

 

Please . . . give me a break. The hall voters mainly douchebag journalists and critics. A group I'm certain you're very familiar with.

 

Explain Madonna's entry into the RnR HOF, and then I can listen to your bloviating on why Rush isn't worthy.

[Buftex]

Some people like music that isn't three chords and lyrics about banging some chick or shooting heroin.

 

To each their own. If you don't like it, great. Different strokes for different folks. Personally, i think your opinion rates with what I flush away every morning. You don't get them . . . We get it. Stop acting like it's an affront to humanity.

 

BTW, that's likely the first (and last) time someone mentioned Rush in the same breath as the B52's . . .

 

 

 

 

I would rather listen to B-52's than Rush!

 

That makes two!

[Delete This Account]

Some people like music that isn't three chords and lyrics about banging some chick or shooting heroin.

 

To each their own. If you don't like it, great. Different strokes for different folks. Personally, i think your opinion rates with what I flush away every morning. You don't get them . . . We get it. Stop acting like it's an affront to humanity.

 

BTW, that's likely the first (and last) time someone mentioned Rush in the same breath as the B52's . . .

 

 

 

Please . . . give me a break. The hall voters mainly douchebag journalists and critics. A group I'm certain you're very familiar with.

 

Explain Madonna's entry into the RnR HOF, and then I can listen to your bloviating on why Rush isn't worthy.

 

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

[BillsFanNC]

 

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.

 

 

I think Yes should be in too. They probably aren't in because outside of 90125 they took the progressive route even farther out there than Rush did and it's pretty clear that the nominating committee doesn't appreciate the prog rock so much. But like Rush, just get them on the ballot and they're likely in right away.

 

Any argument for Styx getting in before or after Rush is bound to be a rather flimsy one.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

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.

 

 

Do yourself a favor and resist. It's not very becoming especially with something as subjective as music. And why is Rush there before Yes? The answer is the selection committee picked them first. Why did they pick them first? Who cares. I love Yes a ton more than Rush and the fact that Rush made it in before Yes means absolutely nothing to me.

[Delete This Account]

Do yourself a favor and resist. It's not very becoming especially with something as subjective as music. And why is Rush there before Yes? The answer is the selection committee picked them first. Why did they pick them first? Who cares. I love Yes a ton more than Rush and the fact that Rush made it in before Yes means absolutely nothing to me.

 

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

[stevestojan]

 

 

You seem to be upset that I have an opinion.

 

Isn't that why I don't like you?

[Chef Jim]

Isn't that why I don't like you?

 

You don't like me because I have an opinion or you don't like my opinion? If you dislike me for either of those reasons you have issues. However if you don't like me for other reasons........well that's nice.

[Helpmenow]

Styx. Wtf what have done and who havey influenced

 

Rush has the worlds best drummer an styx has

[The Poojer]

i am going to see camper & cracker at world cafe live in january...cannot wait!

 

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

[Astrojanitor]

i am going to see camper & cracker at world cafe live in january...cannot wait!

 

You're going to have a great time. Camper is still amazing after all these years. Only saw them once, in 2003, and they absolutely killed. Cracker I've never been able to get into, but I still listen to as much Camper Van Beethoven now as I did in 1989.

[Philly McButterpants]

Specifically, the Velvet Underground (heroin), and the Ramones (banging chicks and heroin), and the Sex Pistols.

 

Like you with Rush, I don't get the Velvet Underground. 4 albums? One went gold? It's noise, not music. It's a horrible representation of pretentious critic-chic. If some people don't get Rush, I can firmly state that I don't get the VU. Lou Reed has done some interesting things since, but I can't think of Anything past 1980 that's remotely relevant. John Cale once screamed at a plant onstage for 45 minutes. Whew. Hope he had to practice a lot for that! NO ONE could ever play that.

 

One can make a better argument for the Ramones. At least they had a lot of power pop hooks in their music. It's pleasant to listen to, but any kid can figure out 90% of their songs within 10 minutes of getting their first guitar. Longevity? Nah. Influence? Better argument.

 

The Sex Pistols are the epitome of the rock critic's chic "I''m cooler than you because of the music I listen to" band. It's not very well written or played. It's distorted noise and simplistic. And they are a product of the blatant commercialism that they were supposed to be rebelling against. They are as much a product of commercialized production as Kiss, however, no one ever had to turn off Gene Simmons' amps because he couldn't play the instrument.

 

None of these bands ever had the musicianship, longevity or influence that Rush has had, yet no one ever questions their legitimacy in the Hall.

 

And yes, I take this personally. I heard my first Rush album in 1978, and they've been my favorite since. Haven't missed an album or a tour ( even the hideous Hold Your Fire) since. I can make an argument that 3 of their best albums have been some of their more recent releases (Counterparts, Vapor Trails, and Clockwork Angels). JW's argument that they released some prog rock in the 70's, and Geddy's voice isnt Freddy Mercury's and therefore they dont deserve to be in the RnR HOF doesn't hold water.

 

25 years after his hey day, Elton John is doing Disney soundtracks. Rush is producing some of the heaviest rock of their career all while pushing 60. When's the last time the Rolliing Stones, the worlds greatest rock n roll band, released an album that was worth listening to? Tattoo you? Maybe Voodoo Lounge if you want to push it. Steel wheels? Puh-leese.

 

Another post in this thread listed the Hall's admission criteria. Rush objectively meets all 4 categories. Subjectively, some people don't like them. That doesn't de-legitimize the worthiness of the band to be in the RnR HOF.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Fatty McButterpants

[Helpmenow]

A bigger bang had alot of good solid rock/guitar on it. Been a huge since 65 . Rush is one solid band, not everybody likes geddy's vocals.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

much is debatable, but some things aren't, which is why we're having this discussion.

 

jw

 

So what things are not debatable? That the 'Mats (I have no idea who they are) are good?

[Astrojanitor]

Specifically, the Velvet Underground (heroin), and the Ramones (banging chicks and heroin), and the Sex Pistols.

 

Like you with Rush, I don't get the Velvet Underground. 4 albums? One went gold? It's noise, not music. It's a horrible representation of pretentious critic-chic. If some people don't get Rush, I can firmly state that I don't get the VU. Lou Reed has done some interesting things since, but I can't think of Anything past 1980 that's remotely relevant. John Cale once screamed at a plant onstage for 45 minutes. Whew. Hope he had to practice a lot for that! NO ONE could ever play that.

 

One can make a better argument for the Ramones. At least they had a lot of power pop hooks in their music. It's pleasant to listen to, but any kid can figure out 90% of their songs within 10 minutes of getting their first guitar. Longevity? Nah. Influence? Better argument.

 

The Sex Pistols are the epitome of the rock critic's chic "I''m cooler than you because of the music I listen to" band. It's not very well written or played. It's distorted noise and simplistic. And they are a product of the blatant commercialism that they were supposed to be rebelling against. They are as much a product of commercialized production as Kiss, however, no one ever had to turn off Gene Simmons' amps because he couldn't play the instrument.

 

None of these bands ever had the musicianship, longevity or influence that Rush has had, yet no one ever questions their legitimacy in the Hall.

 

And yes, I take this personally. I heard my first Rush album in 1978, and they've been my favorite since. Haven't missed an album or a tour ( even the hideous Hold Your Fire) since. I can make an argument that 3 of their best albums have been some of their more recent releases (Counterparts, Vapor Trails, and Clockwork Angels). JW's argument that they released some prog rock in the 70's, and Geddy's voice isnt Freddy Mercury's and therefore they dont deserve to be in the RnR HOF doesn't hold water.

 

25 years after his hey day, Elton John is doing Disney soundtracks. Rush is producing some of the heaviest rock of their career all while pushing 60. When's the last time the Rolliing Stones, the worlds greatest rock n roll band, released an album that was worth listening to? Tattoo you? Maybe Voodoo Lounge if you want to push it. Steel wheels? Puh-leese.

 

Another post in this thread listed the Hall's admission criteria. Rush objectively meets all 4 categories. Subjectively, some people don't like them. That doesn't de-legitimize the worthiness of the band to be in the RnR HOF.

 

I agree Rush should be in, but your thoughts on VU and Ramones are completely insane. Those are two of the most important and influential bands in rock and roll history. The least original thing about me is I started my first band after hearing them. I don't know a single person who doesn't use those bands as a prime influence.

[Delete This Account]

Specifically, the Velvet Underground (heroin), and the Ramones (banging chicks and heroin), and the Sex Pistols.

 

Like you with Rush, I don't get the Velvet Underground. 4 albums? One went gold? It's noise, not music. It's a horrible representation of pretentious critic-chic. If some people don't get Rush, I can firmly state that I don't get the VU. Lou Reed has done some interesting things since, but I can't think of Anything past 1980 that's remotely relevant. John Cale once screamed at a plant onstage for 45 minutes. Whew. Hope he had to practice a lot for that! NO ONE could ever play that.

 

One can make a better argument for the Ramones. At least they had a lot of power pop hooks in their music. It's pleasant to listen to, but any kid can figure out 90% of their songs within 10 minutes of getting their first guitar. Longevity? Nah. Influence? Better argument.

 

The Sex Pistols are the epitome of the rock critic's chic "I''m cooler than you because of the music I listen to" band. It's not very well written or played. It's distorted noise and simplistic. And they are a product of the blatant commercialism that they were supposed to be rebelling against. They are as much a product of commercialized production as Kiss, however, no one ever had to turn off Gene Simmons' amps because he couldn't play the instrument.

 

None of these bands ever had the musicianship, longevity or influence that Rush has had, yet no one ever questions their legitimacy in the Hall.

 

And yes, I take this personally. I heard my first Rush album in 1978, and they've been my favorite since. Haven't missed an album or a tour ( even the hideous Hold Your Fire) since. I can make an argument that 3 of their best albums have been some of their more recent releases (Counterparts, Vapor Trails, and Clockwork Angels). JW's argument that they released some prog rock in the 70's, and Geddy's voice isnt Freddy Mercury's and therefore they dont deserve to be in the RnR HOF doesn't hold water.

 

25 years after his hey day, Elton John is doing Disney soundtracks. Rush is producing some of the heaviest rock of their career all while pushing 60. When's the last time the Rolliing Stones, the worlds greatest rock n roll band, released an album that was worth listening to? Tattoo you? Maybe Voodoo Lounge if you want to push it. Steel wheels? Puh-leese.

 

Another post in this thread listed the Hall's admission criteria. Rush objectively meets all 4 categories. Subjectively, some people don't like them. That doesn't de-legitimize the worthiness of the band to be in the RnR HOF.

 

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

 

So what things are not debatable? That the 'Mats (I have no idea who they are) are good?

 

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

Edited December 17, 2012 by john wawrow

[The Poojer]

The Replacements

 

...and there isn't a debate...they ARE good!!!

 

 

 

So what things are not debatable? That the 'Mats (I have no idea who they are) are good?

Edited December 17, 2012 by The Poojer

[Beerball]

My goodness you people take your music seriously. I wish The Dean were still around to weigh in here, this thread would be 10 pages by now.

[The Poojer]

yeah of steely dan posts :-)

 

My goodness you people take your music seriously. I wish The Dean were still around to weigh in here, this thread would be 10 pages by now.

[Chef Jim]

The Replacements

 

...and there isn't a debate...they ARE good!!!

 

Good music is in the ear of the beholder. What you and jw think is good there are millions that think it's horrible. That's the beauty of music and a major award needs to go to the inventor of the headphones/earbuds.