Best Player Available Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 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 Memphis is cool, but I say get on ole highway 61 and cruise on down to Clarksdale Mississippi if you're into music. Way more MoJo and only a few hours drive. Do it in the summer , hangout, and go to a juke joint. I mean a real one not the crap bars that have neon signs saying "juke joint". You will need an invite to witness the real deal, and you better dig moonshine and the blues. Beale st. in the past 20 years reminds me more of fisherman's wharf, that a music destination. Unless of course BB is holding court at his place, which is rare now.
BillsFanNC Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 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 ok, so most of it can be boiled down to "I just don't like them" which is fine, but it doesn't count for exclusion.. By every single criteria that they look for Rush is there. I agree that the hall is largely a joke, but if you're gonna have one Rush has got to be in, there's no two ways about it. Third most consecutive gold or platinum albums behind only the Beatles and the Stones. Commercial success check. They are still touring supporting albums nearly 40 years into their career. Not endless nostalgia tours like the Stones or The Who. Longevity check. All three members have consistently been recognized by their peers as among the best at what they do. Musical excellence check. Smashing pumpkins, nine inch nails, pantera, metallica, red hot chili peppers, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam etc, etc have all mentioned how influential Rush was to them in their formative years. Infliuence on rock music check. Rush is a polarizing band, I get that, but to deny that they haven't accomplished well beyond the minimum for what should be required for induction into an artistic HOF is just weak IMO. Finally I leave you with this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTvLjSyTCF8
NoSaint Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 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 ive done memphis before and enjoyed it greatly. i have enjoyed my trips around the south for music.
Best Player Available Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 ok, so most of it can be boiled down to "I just don't like them" which is fine, but it doesn't count for exclusion.. By every single criteria that they look for Rush is there. I agree that the hall is largely a joke, but if you're gonna have one Rush has got to be in, there's no two ways about it. Third most consecutive gold or platinum albums behind only the Beatles and the Stones. Commercial success check. They are still touring supporting albums nearly 40 years into their career. Not endless nostalgia tours like the Stones or The Who. Longevity check. All three members have consistently been recognized by their peers as among the best at what they do. Musical excellence check. Smashing pumpkins, nine inch nails, pantera, metallica, red hot chili peppers, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam etc, etc have all mentioned how influential Rush was to them in their formative years. Infliuence on rock music check. Rush is a polarizing band, I get that, but to deny that they haven't accomplished well beyond the minimum for what should be required for induction into an artistic HOF is just weak IMO. Finally I leave you with this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTvLjSyTCF8 Nice video. I always wished Lee's vocals didn't sound like his nuts are in a vice though. Always was my biggest fault with the band.
Delete This Account Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 ok, so most of it can be boiled down to "I just don't like them" which is fine, but it doesn't count for exclusion.. By every single criteria that they look for Rush is there. I agree that the hall is largely a joke, but if you're gonna have one Rush has got to be in, there's no two ways about it. Third most consecutive gold or platinum albums behind only the Beatles and the Stones. Commercial success check. They are still touring supporting albums nearly 40 years into their career. Not endless nostalgia tours like the Stones or The Who. Longevity check. All three members have consistently been recognized by their peers as among the best at what they do. Musical excellence check. Smashing pumpkins, nine inch nails, pantera, metallica, red hot chili peppers, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam etc, etc have all mentioned how influential Rush was to them in their formative years. Infliuence on rock music check. Rush is a polarizing band, I get that, but to deny that they haven't accomplished well beyond the minimum for what should be required for induction into an artistic HOF is just weak IMO. Finally I leave you with this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTvLjSyTCF8 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
Astrojanitor Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 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 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 Bleach is Nirvana's first (and best) record, not Nevermind. Cheap Trick, The Monkees (especially Mike Nesmith) and Steve Earle all belong in yesterday.
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 Bleach is Nirvana's first (and best) record, not Nevermind. Never question the all powerful music know it all wawrow......never!
Astrojanitor Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Never question the all powerful music know it all wawrow......never! Hey kettle, you're black!
Delete This Account Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Bleach is Nirvana's first (and best) record, not Nevermind. Cheap Trick, The Monkees (especially Mike Nesmith) and Steve Earle all belong in yesterday. 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
BillsFanNC Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 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 I'm fully aware that I'm not going to convince you, I'm just going to continue proving you wrong. Rush detractors are just as vehement in their disdain as their supporters are in their advocacy. That just tends to endear me more to the worlds biggest cult band. Everything I mentioned are things the hall looks for as criteria for induction, and you respond through the prism of your anti Rush prejudices. You can't do that. Longevity, influence, musical proficiency and excellence, these are all criteria the hall claims they look for for eligibility, its right there on their website. You disagree that Rush has achieved in these areas, but legions of fans, musicians and critics worldwide know that they indeed have. That's why they're in, albeit 14 years late.
Astrojanitor Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 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 I would argue Monkees for their cultural impact as much as anything. They had this Zelig like ability to be involved in so many paradigm shifting moments. From their film lauching the new american cinema of the 70s, Nez being part of the invention of the Laurel Canyon sound, Nez inventing MTV, bringing Jimi Hendrix to the national consciousness, to simply writing some killer tunes. The Monkees were puppets only in that some vocal tracks cut for the show turned into 2 records they knew nothing about. The vast majority of their songs were self penned or covers. Though Boyce and Hart did write the early hits. It'll never happen though. Cheap Trick has been crazy influential too. I hear them in every power pop band, something they had a strong hand in inventing. Plus there's something to be said for just being awesome for 35 years. Their new stuff is still really great. How often does that happen? Extra persuasion: southern girls. But I'm biased. They are two of my favorite bands.
Helpmenow Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 I would argue Monkees for their cultural impact as much as anything. They had this Zelig like ability to be involved in so many paradigm shifting moments. From their film lauching the new american cinema of the 70s, Nez being part of the invention of the Laurel Canyon sound, Nez inventing MTV, bringing Jimi Hendrix to the national consciousness, to simply writing some killer tunes. The Monkees were puppets only in that some vocal tracks cut for the show turned into 2 records they knew nothing about. The vast majority of their songs were self penned or covers. Though Boyce and Hart did write the early hits. It'll never happen though. Cheap Trick has been crazy influential too. I hear them in every power pop band, something they had a strong hand in inventing. Plus there's something to be said for just being awesome for 35 years. Their new stuff is still really great. How often does that happen? Extra persuasion: southern girls. But I'm biased. They are two of my favorite bands. They did some fine work with tony levin with john lennon
Delete This Account Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) I'm fully aware that I'm not going to convince you, I'm just going to continue proving you wrong. Rush detractors are just as vehement in their disdain as their supporters are in their advocacy. That just tends to endear me more to the worlds biggest cult band. Everything I mentioned are things the hall looks for as criteria for induction, and you respond through the prism of your anti Rush prejudices. You can't do that. Longevity, influence, musical proficiency and excellence, these are all criteria the hall claims they look for for eligibility, its right there on their website. You disagree that Rush has achieved in these areas, but legions of fans, musicians and critics worldwide know that they indeed have. That's why they're in, albeit 14 years late. 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 Edited December 14, 2012 by john wawrow
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted December 14, 2012 Author Posted December 14, 2012 like rush all you want, just don't pretend that they've suddenly been legitimized because they're heading to cleveland. Actually it's the other way around - the HoF is a little more legitimized because they finally put Rush in.
BillsFanNC Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 i can do that. and i will. Sure you can, if you want to continue being intellectually dishonest. 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. No I don't, the RnR HOF does. Again it's right there on their website if you want to go read it. Those are the rules and criteria I'm playing by and you're not. 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. It's all about flying in the face of the establishment, F the man of faceless corporate rock, right? We'll get to that later and why you're once again wrong when it comes to Rush by your standard, it's only a matter of time that creed gets in because they influenced nickleback. Again, not my standard and you're forgetting the musical excellence and innovative part with these two. 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. That was a title given by Geddy himself, and he is absolutely correct. Rush's success after nearly 40 years producing music has been in spite of the rock n roll establishment. Like you've so stubbornly displayed in this thread Rush has been panned by critics for almost 40 years based on how Geddy sounded in 1977 and for a popular record with synthesizers that came out in 1980. Rush was dead in the water in 1975. Caress of Steel had bombed and Rush was under intense pressure from the record company to produce an album with some radio friendly songs. They responded with 2112, an decidedly radio unfriendly album, with a 20 minute song as it's centerpiece. Essentially a big FU to the record company. And that album launched their careers the old fashioned way, through word of mouth. That's what it's largely about after all with all your underground cult bands right? FU to the mainstream, run against the mill and we'll do it our way, dammit!! Since that day Rush has done it their way and have not let the critics or record companies dictate what they do. Worlds biggest cult band. 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 We're talking about a music HOF here, so that on it's own lends itself to a lot of subjectivity. However, at the end of the day you have to have some objective criteria that you can stand back and look at. Which means, that you need to put aside your biases and prejudices about any band, do some research and look objectively at the breadth of their work, career and influence etc. You don't get Rush, understood. 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? Look, there are plenty of bands already in the hall that I don't care for. Steely Dan for example. Do I get their music? No. Will I change the channel almost every time a SD song comes on? Yes. Do they belong in the RnR HOF? Absolutely. Here is an article by a guy who panned Rush's Signals album (again, 30 years ago) and why they got his vote for the RnR HOF. http://www.theglobea...018/?cmpid=rss1 In a sidebar, there were excerpts from reviews slamming this Rush album and that, among them being a 1982 slam of Signals which complained that “Geddy Lee’s congested vocals float through the songs like swamp gas.” The author? Yours truly. What changed my mind?.... it’s that Rush has gotten better over the years. Unlike most rockers, who peak in their first decade and spend the rest of their career either treading water or slowly sinking, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart have continued to grow over the decades. They play better now than they did then, they take more chances musically, and they write more interesting material. Frankly, I can’t think of many other bands I could say that about. Still all we keep hearing about is Geddy's banshee wailing, synthesizers and pretentious lyrics from 30 years ago. Save your outrage for the ABBA's of the hall, you're just simply dead wrong here.
Delete This Account Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Sure you can, if you want to continue being intellectually dishonest. No I don't, the RnR HOF does. Again it's right there on their website if you want to go read it. Those are the rules and criteria I'm playing by and you're not. It's all about flying in the face of the establishment, F the man of faceless corporate rock, right? We'll get to that later and why you're once again wrong when it comes to Rush Again, not my standard and you're forgetting the musical excellence and innovative part with these two. That was a title given by Geddy himself, and he is absolutely correct. Rush's success after nearly 40 years producing music has been in spite of the rock n roll establishment. Like you've so stubbornly displayed in this thread Rush has been panned by critics for almost 40 years based on how Geddy sounded in 1977 and for a popular record with synthesizers that came out in 1980. Rush was dead in the water in 1975. Caress of Steel had bombed and Rush was under intense pressure from the record company to produce an album with some radio friendly songs. They responded with 2112, an decidedly radio unfriendly album, with a 20 minute song as it's centerpiece. Essentially a big FU to the record company. And that album launched their careers the old fashioned way, through word of mouth. That's what it's largely about after all with all your underground cult bands right? FU to the mainstream, run against the mill and we'll do it our way, dammit!! Since that day Rush has done it their way and have not let the critics or record companies dictate what they do. Worlds biggest cult band. We're talking about a music HOF here, so that on it's own lends itself to a lot of subjectivity. However, at the end of the day you have to have some objective criteria that you can stand back and look at. Which means, that you need to put aside your biases and prejudices about any band, do some research and look objectively at the breadth of their work, career and influence etc. You don't get Rush, understood. 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? Look, there are plenty of bands already in the hall that I don't care for. Steely Dan for example. Do I get their music? No. Will I change the channel almost every time a SD song comes on? Yes. Do they belong in the RnR HOF? Absolutely. Here is an article by a guy who panned Rush's Signals album (again, 30 years ago) and why they got his vote for the RnR HOF. http://www.theglobea...018/?cmpid=rss1 [/size][/font][/color] Still all we keep hearing about is Geddy's banshee wailing, synthesizers and pretentious lyrics from 30 years ago. Save your outrage for the ABBA's of the hall, you're just simply dead wrong here. 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 Edited December 14, 2012 by john wawrow
Buftex Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 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 JW- I generally agree with your musical taste (takes?)...but you are just a music snob!
Delete This Account Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 JW- I generally agree with your musical taste (takes?)...but you are just a music snob! 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
BillsFanNC Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 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. Actually it's the opposite. I want to make this less personal and subjective and ask you to step back and evaluate things more objectively. It IS about lots of people and musicians liking them, this is what I don't think you're willing to acknowledge. For everything you're saying Rush is not, they ARE those things to more fans and to other bands than the ones you listed combined. That's gotta count for something. It doesn't matter if you don't dig them or how they present themselves, ultimately the preponderance of the fans and other acclaimed musicians has to carry the day. 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. They've been on the outside looking in as far as critical acclaim for their entire career, that's where it comes from. I have personally heard of all of the bands that you listed for what it's worth. That's why I know that most of them aren't that well known outside of a small, dare i say cult-like, following. I'm on board with Cheap Trick getting in for sure, and maybe a few others but none deserve to be in before Rush. if Rush gets in, why not Styx. a case could certainly be made for them, no? First Asia, now Styx? Seriously? This more than anything displays how out of touch you are with the situation. Cut away everything Rush has done post 1982 and you might have a valid Styx or Asia comparison. 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. Again, you're clearly the one stuck in the 70's when it comes to objectively evaluating Rush's hall worthiness.
Chef Jim Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Hey kettle, you're black! Difference is I'm opinionated and brief. Wawrow pontificates.
Recommended Posts