leave replacements out of hall of fame (reinduct rush if you have to)

[Philly McButterpants]

you miss my point. i am among several who don't recognize the shill palace in cleveland as a rock and roll hall of fame. it's not. it's an applebees version of a hard rock cafe.

 

jw

 

You had no problem recognizing the RRHOF when you didn't want Rush to get inducted...

 

Shorter thread: My favorite band is better than your favorite band.

[Delete This Account]

You had no problem recognizing the RRHOF when you didn't want Rush to get inducted...

 

Shorter thread: My favorite band is better than your favorite band.

 

bahloney, i criticized the rock and roll hall of fame for being the sham that it has become by inducting Rush before Yes, Blondie before the Runaways, ignoring the Pixies and Nick Lowe.

and this is why i suggested in the heading of this thread that the hall of fame would be best served to re-induct Rush, given its track record.

the fact that some believe Kiss is on the fence and Linda Ronstadt not is yet another example of how that place has become a sinkhole for mediocrity.

 

it's not a matter of who's band is better. i make the case that the Replacements are among the most influential groups to come out of america.

 

jw

 

 

So John, why don't you go ahead and explain rock and roll to me like you have to explain the Replacements to your friends. I'm always up for learning something new.

 

BTW if you feel that R&R is something that needs to or expects to be understood just shows that you're the one that doesn't understand R&R.

 

i've made my case, to you on several occasions. it's not my fault that you don't seem to comprehend.

so let me simply it recalling a conversation we've previously had in regards to an easy demarcation line between what stands and doesn't stand for rock and roll. one word: flute.

 

jw

[The Poojer]

Mick also has said that as soon as he wrote it, he knew it was going to be a single. He said it was his answer to everyone who took seriously what he or the band did.

 

http://youtu.be/JGaBlygm0UY

Edited October 20, 2013 by The Poojer

[Chef Jim]

i've made my case, to you on several occasions. it's not my fault that you don't seem to comprehend.

so let me simply it recalling a conversation we've previously had in regards to an easy demarcation line between what stands and doesn't stand for rock and roll. one word: flute.

 

jw

 

Ah yes, the old flute argument which I had completely forgotten. Well if that's all you got to demonstrate that I don't understand rock and roll shows you've got nothing to back that claim up.

 

it's not a matter of who's band is better. i make the case that the Replacements are among the most influential groups to come out of america.

 

 

jw

 

Now that's a good one. Even though I'm not a big fan of the Replacements there are probably 5 out of Motown alone that have had more influence. See there was lots of good influential music pre-punk/new wave.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Chef Jim

[Astrojanitor]

If the Mats get in some kid is going to discover their new favorite band. Not only is that a good thing, it's the only thing that matters. RRHOF inductions are not official rankings, it ultimately means nothing. But it does shine a light on some great bands which means members of said bands can afford to pay their medical bills (see: Dunlap, Slim).

[BillsFanNC]

bahloney, i criticized the rock and roll hall of fame for being the sham that it has become by inducting Rush before Yes, Blondie before the Runaways, ignoring the Pixies and Nick Lowe.

and this is why i suggested in the heading of this thread that the hall of fame would be best served to re-induct Rush, given its track record.

the fact that some believe Kiss is on the fence and Linda Ronstadt not is yet another example of how that place has become a sinkhole for mediocrity.

 

 

Chris Squire disagrees.

 

 

Rush are getting inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Are you at all miffed they got it before you?

 

[Laughs] No, I can't object to that. Logistically, it's probably difficult for whoever the committee is to bring in Yes. Rush is fairly simple. It's the same three guys and always has been. They deserve to be there, no doubt about that. But there still seems to be a certain bias towards early-Seventies prog rock bands like Yes and King Crimson.

I still think it's weird that Chicago isn't in. That to me is odd. In our case, we're on our 18th member. If we ever do get inducted, it would be only fair to have all the members, old and new. So that may be a problem for the committee. I don't know.

 

But you're not angry about it?

 

No, of course not. I've got plenty of other awards

 

Neil Peart via Dylan said it best in his induction speech

 

The soft spoken Peart started by saying,”We’ve been saying for a long time that this isn’t a big deal. Turns out. it kind of is!” Referencing the Foo Fighters, he said, “Theirs is the praise of the praiseworthy,” and said he was glad to have influenced them. He quoted Bob Dylan, saying, “The highest purpose of art is to inspire. What else can you do?”

 

http://news.radio.co...l-hall-of-fame/

[Buftex]

bahloney, i criticized the rock and roll hall of fame for being the sham that it has become by inducting Rush before Yes, Blondie before the Runaways, ignoring the Pixies and Nick Lowe.

and this is why i suggested in the heading of this thread that the hall of fame would be best served to re-induct Rush, given its track record.

the fact that some believe Kiss is on the fence and Linda Ronstadt not is yet another example of how that place has become a sinkhole for mediocrity.

 

it's not a matter of who's band is better. i make the case that the Replacements are among the most influential groups to come out of america.

 

jw

 

 

 

i've made my case, to you on several occasions. it's not my fault that you don't seem to comprehend.

so let me simply it recalling a conversation we've previously had in regards to an easy demarcation line between what stands and doesn't stand for rock and roll. one word: flute.

 

jw

 

JW- I probably agree with you more often than not, on matters of taste, but you are really making this a "my taste is superior to your taste" kind of thing...it is inevitable when discussing this kind of stuff...

[Chef Jim]

JW- I probably agree with you more often than not, on matters of taste, but you are really making this a "my taste is superior to your taste" kind of thing...it is inevitable when discussing this kind of stuff...

 

This is why I've learned as best I can to use "In my opinion" a lot when talking about music. There is a lot of music I like and listen to that many people hate and I'm 100% ok with that because I don't care and I would never try to explain it to them. I listen to my music myself. There have been plenty of concerts I go to by myself (next week's Gov't Mule show for example) because my wife doesn't care to go and she and I have very similar tastes in music. Many times I have to remind myself when she's in the car to turn off my music because there's a chance she doesn't like it.

 

There are plenty of other subjects that follow this. Cooking is one that is obviously near and dear to me. I make fun of people's taste but it mostly in jest. I would never begrudge someone for wanting a fast food burger over foie gras. There are plenty of times I would take the burger first and most of the world's best chefs feel that way too.

[tennesseeboy]

Well...Ringo Starr was a replacement for Pete Best? Want Ringo out of the Hall of Fame? That's a problem with hard and fast rules such as a "no replacement" rule.

[Gugny]

Well...Ringo Starr was a replacement for Pete Best? Want Ringo out of the Hall of Fame? That's a problem with hard and fast rules such as a "no replacement" rule.

 

[NoSaint]

 

 

This is why I've learned as best I can to use "In my opinion" a lot when talking about music. There is a lot of music I like and listen to that many people hate and I'm 100% ok with that because I don't care and I would never try to explain it to them. I listen to my music myself. There have been plenty of concerts I go to by myself (next week's Gov't Mule show for example) because my wife doesn't care to go and she and I have very similar tastes in music. Many times I have to remind myself when she's in the car to turn off my music because there's a chance she doesn't like it.

 

There are plenty of other subjects that follow this. Cooking is one that is obviously near and dear to me. I make fun of people's taste but it mostly in jest. I would never begrudge someone for wanting a fast food burger over foie gras. There are plenty of times I would take the burger first and most of the world's best chefs feel that way too.

 

but in this case hes defining what is rock and roll primarily and how influence within that spread, not what is good. he didnt say (atleast in this thread) flute sucks, simply that he doesnt believe it should be in a hall defined as rock. theres plenty of great musicians that have no business in the rock n roll hall of fame.

[Chef Jim]

but in this case hes defining what is rock and roll primarily and how influence within that spread, not what is good. he didnt say (atleast in this thread) flute sucks, simply that he doesnt believe it should be in a hall defined as rock. theres plenty of great musicians that have no business in the rock n roll hall of fame.

 

So now we're saying what instruments belong in the hall and which do not? Are you and he really saying that?? If so that one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

 

The problem you are all having is the name of the hall. The Rock and Roll Hall. I don't look at it based on the name. To me it's the Contemporary Music Hall of Fame.

[NoSaint]

 

 

So now we're saying what instruments belong in the hall and which do not? Are you and he really saying that?? If so that one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

 

The problem you are all having is the name of the hall. The Rock and Roll Hall. I don't look at it based on the name. To me it's the Contemporary Music Hall of Fame.

 

isnt that the very problem, that its not simply the contemporary music hall of fame, despite being treated as such? Hes more strongly (and i certainly support) arguing that rock n roll should be something special, not just anyone that plays music well in the modern era.

Edited October 21, 2013 by NoSaint

[Chef Jim]

isnt that the very problem, that its not simply the contemporary music hall of fame, despite being treated as such? Hes more strongly (and i certainly support) arguing that rock n roll should be something special, not just anyone that plays music well in the modern era.

 

OK here's the rub. Define Rock and Roll.

[Delete This Account]

isnt that the very problem, that its not simply the contemporary music hall of fame, despite being treated as such? Hes more strongly (and i certainly support) arguing that rock n roll should be something special, not just anyone that plays music well in the modern era.

 

thanks, for helping me make my case, No Saint. you've helped define a point i've been trying to say. rock and roll is a movement, an art form of swagger and rebellion, expression and angst. it is for the young, and the young at heart. if there's one thing i did respect during my one and likely only visit to the rock and roll hall of fame is the t-shirt i bought, which read: "If it's too loud, you're too old."

 

prog rock is fine. heck, jethro tull is fine. i have no trouble with anyone liking their music. but is it hall of fame worthy? unsure of that.

now if ian anderson did more than just play that flute and attempted to pull a few ribald GG Allin stunts, well, then we might well be on to something. but to stomp around on stage for 8 and 12 minutes at a time blowing wind seemed a little too progressive for what rock and roll stands for, which bared to the bone is blues with a gut punch.

 

M.I.A. in my opinion harkened that rock and roll spirit with her indignant display on stage during the super bowl halftime show.

Lada Gaga might have something going for her given the stands she's taken.

Devo's nerdy contrarian stand in the face of the pretty-boy and girl 80s was rebellious. and they could play.

or Steve Earle pissing off St. Pete at the Pearly Gates, is something to behold.

four kids, half-drunk on cheep whisky in a garage, jamming on a friday night is my definition of rock and roll, or as close as it comes.

 

 

but a flautist?

 

it's suggested here that i make my case to define rock and roll.

well, define jazz or country.

it's like explaining blue.

it ain't easy. but you know it when you see it, and especially when you hear it.

 

jw

[NoSaint]

 

 

thanks, for helping me make my case, No Saint. you've helped define a point i've been trying to say. rock and roll is a movement, an art form of swagger and rebellion, exp<b></b>ression and angst. it is for the young, and the young at heart. if there's one thing i did respect during my one and likely only visit to the rock and roll hall of fame is the t-shirt i bought, which read: "If it's too loud, you're too old."

 

prog rock is fine. heck, jethro tull is fine. i have no trouble with anyone liking their music. but is it hall of fame worthy? unsure of that.

now if ian anderson did more than just play that flute and attempted to pull a few ribald GG Allin stunts, well, then we might well be on to something. but to stomp around on stage for 8 and 12 minutes at a time blowing wind seemed a little too progressive for what rock and roll stands for, which bared to the bone is blues with a gut punch.

 

M.I.A. in my opinion harkened that rock and roll spirit with her indignant display on stage during the super bowl halftime show.

Lada Gaga might have something going for her given the stands she's taken.

Devo's nerdy contrarian stand in the face of the pretty-boy and girl 80s was rebellious. and they could play.

or Steve Earle pissing off St. Pete at the Pearly Gates, is something to behold.

four kids, half-drunk on cheep whisky in a garage, jamming on a friday night is my definition of rock and roll, or as close as it comes.

 

 

but a flautist?

 

it's suggested here that i make my case to define rock and roll.

well, define jazz or country.

it's like explaining blue.

it ain't easy. but you know it when you see it, and especially when you hear it.

 

jw

 

and instead of making their place in music being one to celebrate that, and lead the discussion -- instead it seems theyve decided to make it the "music industry hall of fame"

 

i wont say its not a worthy hall of fame, but certainly it seems to betray its name at times.

Edited October 22, 2013 by NoSaint

[Helpmenow]

 

 

OK here's the rub. Define Rock and Roll.

chuck berry

[Chef Jim]

thanks, for helping me make my case, No Saint. you've helped define a point i've been trying to say. rock and roll is a movement, an art form of swagger and rebellion, expression and angst. it is for the young, and the young at heart. if there's one thing i did respect during my one and likely only visit to the rock and roll hall of fame is the t-shirt i bought, which read: "If it's too loud, you're too old."

 

 

jw

 

So let me get this straight. If a band does not display swagger, rebellion and angst they're not rock and roll?? I knew you were going to come back with the whole R&R is an attitude more than a style of music. It's first and foremost the music, And that's why in my opinion punk sucks is that all they have is the anger and angst because they sure can't play their instruments all that well. There are tons of bands out there that play R&R music that have zero anger and or angst.

 

What is rock and roll? It's a music that was formed in the 40's and 50's. It's the collision of blues, jazz, country with a little gospel thrown in. It's heavy on the back beat and it music generally played with drums, guitars, keyboards and vocals and maybe even a flute, saxophone or violin thrown in. What it has become today is impossible to identify because it has changed so much over the years. From blues rock, to jazz rock to fusion rock, to prog rock, to heavy rock, to punk rock. The attitude is just a gimmick in my mind. Something born out the the rebellion of the 60's and expanded upon by the punk rock scene that arose in London and NY. I think any rock and roller who cut their chops in the 60's and 70's that is still going strong today would laugh their ass of at you referring to rock and roll and more of an attitude than it is about the music,

[NoSaint]

 

 

So let me get this straight. If a band does not display swagger, rebellion and angst they're not rock and roll?? I knew you were going to come back with the whole R&R is an attitude more than a style of music. It's first and foremost the music, And that's why in my opinion punk sucks is that all they have is the anger and angst because they sure can't play their instruments all that well. There are tons of bands out there that play R&R music that have zero anger and or angst.

 

What is rock and roll? It's a music that was formed in the 40's and 50's. It's the collision of blues, jazz, country with a little gospel thrown in. It's heavy on the back beat and it music generally played with drums, guitars, keyboards and vocals and maybe even a flute, saxophone or violin thrown in. What it has become today is impossible to identify because it has changed so much over the years. From blues rock, to jazz rock to fusion rock, to prog rock, to heavy rock, to punk rock. The attitude is just a gimmick in my mind. Something born out the the rebellion of the 60's and expanded upon by the punk rock scene that arose in London and NY. I think any rock and roller who cut their chops in the 60's and 70's that is still going strong today would laugh their ass of at you referring to rock and roll and more of an attitude than it is about the music,

 

By your hall if contemporary music and everything is fusion anyway approach - what would you exclude from eligibility, if anything?

 

Certainly it's about the music but for a hall of fame it's about EVERYTHING and for something as rebellious as rock n roll attitude matters.

 

Side question but related and hopefully shifts the standoff a little: is part of the problem that 295 inductions in 28 ceremonies is simply too fast a pace allowing (forcing) the definition to spread broadly?

Edited October 23, 2013 by NoSaint

[Helpmenow]

 

http://youtu.be/JGaBlygm0UY

with ronnie wood help