Sep 23 2009 11:21 AM
Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010
Oh and any indductee list selected by a cabal led by Jann Wenner is risible at face value.
Master Index of Archived Threads
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010
| TransMonk Sep 23 2009 08:45 AM |
|
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 Nominees: KISS Red Hot Chili Peppers Genesis The Hollies LL Cool J Jimmy Cliff ABBA The Chantels Darlene Love Laura Nyro The Stooges Donna Summer Who are your five acts to get in next year?
|
| metirish Sep 23 2009 08:48 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Shocked that ABBA are not in already( not shocked but surprised I suppose) ABBA The Hollies Genesis Donna Summer Jimmy Cliff The Hollies take votes form The Chantels......does it work like that?
|
| sharpie Sep 23 2009 08:51 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
ABBA Hollies Stooges Donna Summer and..um.. Genesis (though Darlene Love isn't a bad choice).
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 23 2009 08:53 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
ABBA KISS The Hollies Darlene Love Genesis? Who the fuck cares
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 09:01 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
You sure as hell lose me at ABBA.
|
| TransMonk Sep 23 2009 09:06 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I'm with: KISS Genesis The Hollies Jimmy Cliff The Stooges
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 23 2009 09:26 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":nxmv4j5v]You sure as hell lose me at ABBA.[/quote:nxmv4j5v] Wait... what?
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 09:28 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Not rock and roll.
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 23 2009 09:30 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Yeah but we all know the RnRHoF has nothing to do with RnR. If it did, it wouldn't exist. Oh this whole thing depresses me. Of the bands my little brother was obsessed with in his lifetime that Kiss makes it before Rush gets invited is a joke.
|
| Gwreck Sep 23 2009 09:33 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Deserves to be in: The Stooges. Nobody else. RnR HOF is quickly cheapening itself by mandating the election of 5 people each year. Will get in: Kiss Red Hot Chili Peppers Darlene Love Genesis LL Cool J
|
| Fman99 Sep 23 2009 09:37 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
From that list? Well, I'd go with just these three. Kiss RHCP Genesis And, since they're not on this ridiculous list of nominees (Donna Summer? REALLY?) , I'll add some of the most notable omissions that further my belief that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a bigger joke than "The Aristocrats." The Cars Rush Chicago Deep Purple Jethro Tull Yes Electric Light Orchestra
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 09:59 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Yeah but we all know the RnRHoF has nothing to do with RnR. |
| If it did, it wouldn't exist. |
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 23 2009 10:09 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Never mind. I was just trying to say how un-rock n roll the entire institution is. I got nothing against Abba btw.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 10:37 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Well, I have no problems with KISS Genesis Darlene Love The Stooges Each of the remaining acts has their arguments. The Hollies made some great records but most sound derivative of something else. And I'd rather Iggy made it as a solo act than the Stooges. I think of them as just the original Iggy Pop band, and more a delivery system for his act than a great act themselves.
|
| metsguyinmichigan Sep 23 2009 11:09 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
KISS Red Hot Chili Peppers Genesis ABBA The Stooges I went to the Rock Hall last summer with my son, and liked it a lot. It's lacking, to be sure. And the selection process has been a farce, with more deserving rock names than we can count being locked out while rappers and Dusty Springfield get in. But there's a ton of interesting things to see, and it's worth the trip, especially if the Indians are in town. Here's my speculation: The Rock Hall is a business, like everything else. I'm guessing ticket sales are down (thought I don't have the numbers to back that up.) The Hall has pissed on derserving but popular groups like Kiss, Genesis and ABBA. But admitting some of those bands is bound to generate more visitors than some of the other recent inductees. You can get the graying Kiss Army to pony up the $22 admission fee and look at Gene's old dragon boots -- probably moreso than the Dave Clark Five Army and Grandmaster Flash Army. Another guess is that Kiss and Genesis are the kinds of bands that critics of today -- who are the voters -- cut their teeth on and recall fondly, the same way I like Felix Millan more than Luis Castillo. The older group of critics, having installed the Moonglows and Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers and the groups of their youth, are moving on. That doesn't explain why obvious deserving bands like Rush and Tull are out, unless Geddy and Ian Anderson kicked Jaan Werner's puppies back in the 1970s. There's also the whole Journey, Styx, Foreigner, Def Leppard genre that is notably absent.
|
| metsguyinmichigan Sep 23 2009 11:12 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I can't argue against Fman's choices. Maybe Purple. But the rest are clear snubs. The Cars Rush Chicago Deep Purple Jethro Tull Yes Electric Light Orchestra
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 11:16 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I don't think critics ever liked KISS, except, eventually, with ironic surrender to the army. Critics have deconstructed any defintition of rock 'n'' roll into meaninglessness, so while critical favorites like Laura Nyro make the list, so can anti-rock 'n' roll figures like Grandmaster Flash. He and the Furious Five certainly deserve to be in some hall of fame somewhere, but I'd prefer the inductees of this one to be acts that influenced, defined, or advanced the rock 'n' roll art form. Lost cause, I know. (Cue Grandpa Simpson.) And if that means less popular acts, so be it. I also accept that it would mean acts that aren't particularly deft (KISS) or annoy me (Red Hots) and but I still find that preferable. I need to start my own Halls of Fame. The attendance figure every year would be one.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 11:21 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Oh and any indductee list selected by a cabal led by Jann Wenner is risible at face value.
|
| metirish Sep 23 2009 11:23 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
There's a movement among Thin Lizzy fans like myself to get them elected but I doubt it will ever happen. No Todd Rundgren , no T-Rex....
|
| Edgy DC Sep 23 2009 11:54 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
No Jonathan Richman. No Joan Jett. No Warren Zevon. No Dave Edmunds. No Nick Lowe. No Joan Armatrading. I mean, if the idea behind ABBA and Grandmaster Flash is that all the deserving acts who actually play rock 'n' roll are alreay in, well, think harder. Is Sister Rosetta Tharpe even in?
|
| Valadius Sep 28 2009 11:26 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Leonard Cohen was kept out for nearly two decades, a fact that mystified me.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 28 2009 12:00 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
You're barely two decades old. Leonard Cohen's first album came out the last week of 1967, so --- based on the 25-year standard --- he would be eligible in 1993 at the earliest. So he was "kept out" for 15 years, tops. More importantly, it's not who is out that is the main issue, but who is getting in over them. It's not the lack of Rush, so much as the presence of Madonna over Rush. And it's not the delay of the Dave Clark Five, so much the bump aside they got in favor of Grandmaster Flash and Furious Five. Cohen is a legendary musical artist and a Canadian treasure, but as a rock 'n' roller, he stands only on the periphery. He's worthy of many an honor (and has received many) but he hardly has seemed the highest priority for that honor.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 28 2009 02:27 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Going for the narrowest possible definition of rock 'n' roll here?
|
| Edgy DC Sep 28 2009 02:32 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Certainly Not the narrowest possible definition. More likely the broadest meaningful definition.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 28 2009 02:56 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":hs89nmir]Certainly Not the narrowest possible definition. More likely the broadest meaningful definition.[/quote:hs89nmir] Meaningful meaning...?
|
| Edgy DC Sep 28 2009 08:54 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I think a definition of rock 'n' roll expanded to mean any popular music of the rock 'n' roll era is a dis-service to the music and the people who play it. I don't think saying so is an insult to popular musicians of other genres. I think a defintion that includes acts who influenced, defined, or advanced the form is pretty sufficiently broad. There's a lot of wonderful plaudits ABBA deserves, but giving them that pariticular honor over some of the acts I mentioned only does a wonderful music a dis-service. And really, is advocating for Warren Zevon and Jonathan Richman and Sister Rosetta Tharpe so narrow?
|
| Edgy DC Sep 29 2009 07:22 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
And I bring conversation screeching to a halt, leaving my questio unanswered. How about Neil Diamond?
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 05:30 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
My sense regarding some of the nominees you'd place in the "disservice" category is if they had come along at a time when every sub-genre of what is called "rock 'n' roll" was played on the same radio stations and offered to the same wide youth demographic without being sliced up into segments, they'd seem fine in the context of Hall of Fame voting. Conversely, if some of the '50s or early '60s acts had come along after the slicing and dicing took place, they'd be shunned for being not rock 'n' roll enough. The twenty-five year rule is in there, presumably, to help measure the impact and influence of an artist's career, to add perspective unavailable while an artist is breaking through. Some of the choices the Hall has made that would have seemed off-kilter in the early stages of those kinds of careers make sense later. None of this music grows in a vacuum. Musicians hear other musicians, borrow from other musicians, are inspired by other musicians. Impact and influence on what we the audience hear across the pop-rock spectrum (and yes, I do conflate them) should be a key to who is recognized, if one is interested in what this institution has to say. I find it easier to maintain an unofficial Hall of Fame in my head. I feel the same way about Cooperstown, except I'd like to see Mike Piazza on a plaque with a Mets cap.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 05:46 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I didn't create a category of disservice artists. I spoke about an over-broad definition that is a dis-service. I thought I listed a very thoughtful criteria. Would anybody else like to list theirs? I can think of plenty of popular rock-era artists that started their careers in the first half of that era that would nonetheless not make particularly good candidates --- the Carpenters; Bobby Darin; Nancy Sinatra; Peter, Paul and Mary; Tammy Wynette. And again, this isn't to say that many of these aren't great artists worthy of honor. I'm crazy about Jimmy Webb and I don't think he'd make a particularly good candidate.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 07:18 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
|
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 07:32 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Rock 'n' Roll: a form of American popular music born of a hybrid of rhythm and blues and American country. The music achieved popular dominance in the fifties and was elemental in cultural shifts that would follow, though many researchers would point to antecedents as early as the beginning of the 1940s. Its popularity has spread to much of the world and continues today, though its dominance has waned in the rise of other pop forms. Related genres include soul, rock, rockablily, jump blues, and many others. I'm certainly not suggesting that "the industry" decides. In fact, that's exactly what I'm objecting to. If we expand the definition to include all popular youth-oriented music from the rise of Elvis onward, that's exactly what we are allowing to happen. Welcome aboard, Backstreet Boys. I think the point that an artist gets included under this criteria is when a sufficiently thoughtful and qualified jury that is clear on their assignment decide. I don't trust Jann Wenner, who is industry-plugged to the max, to assemble that jury. But again, what's your criteria?
|
| TransMonk Sep 30 2009 08:05 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
"Rock and roll" is certainly a broad term that means different things to different people. Radio, music rags (Billboard and Rolling Stone in particular) and awards shows have all exponentialized what the term has become known to include by some if not most. For me to consider something rock and roll, here are some musts: -needs to include real guitars and acoustic drums -the song shouldn't have been written for success on dance floors -the artists must be able to perform live every time without lip syncing and backing tracks Not all inclusive, but must haves. Poison is rock and roll. Pink is not. Genesis is. Madonna isn't. Warren Zevon, yes. ABBA, no.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 08:17 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
|
I think "influenced, defined and broadened" is a fair definition. Given that just about every new or innovative contemporary musical style of the past five-plus decades has in some way branched out from the big bang of 1955, I'd prefer a broader, more expansive definition of what is being influenced, defined and broadened and, therefore, who is influencing, defining and broadening. My way of saying I don't have a problem with Madonna or Grandmaster Flash being in. I'd vote for Donna Summer and ABBA, too. And Neil Diamond, since you asked. None of them, mind you, to the exclusion of Rush or KISS or Warren Zevon, just saying I'd like the broadest possible spectrum of artists to be considered. None of this music exists in a vacuum. The Irish kid who grew up to front a band that would sell out stadiums didn't automatically tune out "Dancing Queen" when it came on the radio. In fact, he'd sing lead on it:
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 08:28 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
|
We seem to be in this qualitative mode where it's implied that if I don't think people are the best candidates, I think they're definitevely bad. I don't. Yes, Bono sang "Dancing Queen" --- somewhat ironically, but he did. Elvis sang "The Battle Hym of the Republic." If everything is rock 'n' roll, then nothing is.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 08:45 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Any scratch of the surface at what is going on behind the scenes with the nominating committee should make anyone who cares blanch. The committee has very few musicians, very few people of color and is in fact so stacked with Wenner cronies that it compares favorably to the early seventies Baseball Hall of Fame Veterans Committee. It's really awful. Wenner pretty much appointed himself chair after Ahmet Ertegun died. When the museum opened, the ribbon was cut by --- among others --- Jann Wenner and Yoko Ono, two people who aren't rock 'n' roll musicians, and it would take a pretty broad definition to suggest they are. They're power brokers, and that's something anybody who loves rock 'n' roll should object to.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 08:55 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC"]Elvis sang "The Battle Hym of the Republic." If everything is rock 'n' roll, then nothing is. |
| Any scratch of the surface at what is going on behind the scenes with the nominating committee should make anyone who cares blanch. The committee has very few musicians, very few people of color and is in fact so stacked with Wenner cronies that it compares favorably to the early seventies Baseball Hall of Fame Veterans Committee. It's really awful. Wenner pretty much appointed himself chair after Ahmet Ertegun died. |
| TransMonk Sep 30 2009 08:56 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
It is definitely a never ending cycle. Was ABBA influential because they were one of the best bands ever or because their songs were on the radio all the time? Were their songs on the radio all the time because they were one of the best bands ever or because they regurgitated the same type of song in a niche market that was insanely popular for a very short period of time. I don't consider them one of the best bands ever by a long shot, but they were enormously successful and popular...which is going to make them influential to some, mostly because it was impossible to get away from them when they were big. Media killed the rock and roll and popular music in general. Teenagers and music lovers don't decide what is popular. Record company execs, magazine advertisers and radio station managers decide what is popular. When you hear a song on the radio it is because somebody paid for it to be there in someway. Favors, advertising and... GAHH...as I'm typing this, Dancing Queen just came on the radio I'm listening to!!! Anyhow, ABBA sharing the stage with U2 over fifteen years ago is great, but doesn't make them genuinely influential to me. ABBA has almost has many Greatest Hits albums as regular studio releases. It's not hard to be inluential when you are played over and over and over again. Bruce writing a song for Donna Summer makes him cooler...not her. Madonna has influenced a generation of young girls...but for many of the same reasons as ABBA. Madonna, to her credit, still attempts to make new and evolved music.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 09:10 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Shaun Cassidy was big when ABBA was big. Leo Sayer was big. Taste of Honey was big. Yet it's ABBA that continues to be cited as influential. Even before "Mamma Mia" debuted there was an ABBA resurgence in the '90s: U2, ABBA Gold, "Muriel's Wedding," "Priscilla Queen of the Desert," Erasure's "Abbaesque" and so on. Listen to "Waterloo" in the context of what else was out there when it came out and it was not of a piece with anything else on the radio. No, none of that necessarily makes them great (particularly if you don't like them) but their second wave of pervasiveness, ironic elements notwithstanding, indicates there was something more to them than payola-driven flavor of the month. If Pat Benatar had recorded "Hot Stuff" it would have been all over AOR. Perhaps if Donna Summer hadn't recorded "Love to Love You Baby" first, her version would have been.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 09:17 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="G-Fafif":30xb66yc]In which case, who gives a bleep who they induct?[/quote:30xb66yc] Clearly, I do. I like rock 'n' roll and what it can do. When a museum is dedicated to hand out an allegedly high honor in the name of rock 'n' roll but actually shows a diminishing regard for the form, then generations of visitors who are led to respect the museum's authority are misinformed, and a dis-service is done.
|
| Fman99 Sep 30 2009 09:18 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="G-Fafif":2bbfthmp]Shaun Cassidy was big when ABBA was big. Leo Sayer was big. Taste of Honey was big. Yet it's ABBA that continues to be cited as influential. Even before "Mamma Mia" debuted there was an ABBA resurgence in the '90s: U2, ABBA Gold, "Muriel's Wedding," "Priscilla Queen of the Desert," Erasure's "Abbaesque" and so on. [/quote:2bbfthmp] ABBA:homosexuals::The Cure:goths
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 09:21 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="G-Fafif"]Shaun Cassidy was big when ABBA was big. Leo Sayer was big. Taste of Honey was big. |
| Yet it's ABBA that continues to be cited as influential. Even before "Mamma Mia" debuted there was an ABBA resurgence in the '90s: U2, ABBA Gold, "Muriel's Wedding," "Priscilla Queen of the Desert," Erasure's "Abbaesque" and so on. Listen to "Waterloo" in the context of what else was out there when it came out and it was not of a piece with anything else on the radio. |
| No, none of that necessarily makes them great (particularly if you don't like them) but their second wave of pervasiveness, ironic elements notwithstanding, indicates there was something more to them than payola-driven flavor of the month. |
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 09:28 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":1tzdlh26] When a museum is dedicated to hand out an allegedly high honor in the name of rock 'n' roll but actually shows a diminishing regard for the form, then generations of visitors who are led to respect the museum's authority are misinformed, and a dis-service is done.[/quote:1tzdlh26] I've never seen disservice hyphenated. Yet you don't hyphenate misinformed. I'm suddenly more interested in why you made those choices than why Jann Wenner's cronies make their choices.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 09:38 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":320qtqea]And U2 is the only rock you're citing.[/quote:320qtqea] It's stuck with me all these years as the first sign that a modern "rock" band could acknowledge a "pop" act that wasn't considered particularly cool to that point. Perhaps it speaks to the worldwide popularity of ABBA, which was, as you allude, on a much greater scale outside the United States. (ABBA emerged from the Eurovision song contest, probably a bigger deal in Bono's life than ours.) U2 also covered Robert Knight's "Everlasting Love," made more famous by Carl Carlton. Perhaps it makes U2 the outliers in generously acknowledging that they appreciated stuff that fell outside their perceived genre. Phil Collins produced (and played on) Frida's first solo work, come to think of it.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 09:53 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="G-Fafif":2lmu3kgr][quote="Edgy DC":2lmu3kgr] When a museum is dedicated to hand out an allegedly high honor in the name of rock 'n' roll but actually shows a diminishing regard for the form, then generations of visitors who are led to respect the museum's authority are misinformed, and a dis-service is done.[/quote:2lmu3kgr] I've never seen disservice hyphenated. Yet you don't hyphenate misinformed. I'm suddenly more interested in why you made those choices than why Jann Wenner's cronies make their choices.[/quote:2lmu3kgr] I'm peculiar that way. I don't like seeing a prefix create a double consonant or a dipthong. These can lead to misreadings and mispronunciations. Now, seeing as two S's almost always creates the same sound as one, I'm adhering to my style a little overpedantically and almost religiously. Certainly, my pedantry may someday keep me out of the Editorial Hall of Fame as it is keeping me out of the Mets Onine Posting Hall of Fame.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 10:02 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="G-Fafif":1llfzc6m][quote="Edgy DC":1llfzc6m]And U2 is the only rock you're citing.[/quote:1llfzc6m] It's stuck with me all these years as the first sign that a modern "rock" band could acknowledge a "pop" act that wasn't considered particularly cool to that point. Perhaps it speaks to the worldwide popularity of ABBA, which was, as you allude, on a much greater scale outside the United States. (ABBA emerged from the Eurovision song contest, probably a bigger deal in Bono's life than ours.) U2 also covered Robert Knight's "Everlasting Love," made more famous by Carl Carlton. Perhaps it makes U2 the outliers in generously acknowledging that they appreciated stuff that fell outside their perceived genre. Phil Collins produced (and played on) Frida's first solo work, come to think of it.[/quote:1llfzc6m] All this is true. ABBA is certainly worthy of acknowledgement, praise, and honor, as I repeatedly say. I just don't think one of those honors should be placing them in the pantheon of great rock 'n' roll artists, particularly considering who isn't welcome. The Phil Collins association is fine, but virtually everybody is going to associate with somebody. Honoring somebody for their association makes little sense more than dishonoring them for it. And it's not AnnaFrieda's solo career that is up for consideration.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 10:10 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Bereft of the time and resources to prove ABBA and/or its components appealed to rockers, mods and whoever (or perhaps to disprove it), let me ask this, if we are indeed going to worry about an institutionalized appreciation of music: Considering the artists who are not rock 'n' roll, per your parameters, but worthy of acknowledgment, would we be better off figuratively tearing down the walls of the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame and rebuilding it from scratch to appreciate the artists like these, like Peter, Paul and Mary and Bobby Darin (et al) who influenced and defined music and pushed it forward? Grammys aside (and everybody has some gripe with the Grammys), would the ideal be one roof under which one could take in the joys of popular music, including r 'n' r, from the second half of the twentieth century on?
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 10:33 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Listen, I'm all for your battle against the tyrranny of cool, and getting a few late salvos off against the terstorone-fueled bully teenagers of the late seventies declaring that rock rools and your favorite music is gay, but I'm not sure why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has to be torn down or absorbed in order to do it. I think there's real value to acknowledging and studying what rock and roll is, was, and can be. Having a natural history museum doesn't have to be seen as a snub to technology.
|
| TransMonk Sep 30 2009 10:37 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":t0g7nqdy]And while Monk may disagree with me, there's a solid case for Donna Summer, just not necessarily the best case out there.[/quote:t0g7nqdy] I actually agree completely with that statement. I just don't think she's rock and roll. By the standards set forth so far by the RNRHOF, her track record is quite impressive and still going. [quote="G-Fafif":t0g7nqdy]...if we are indeed going to worry about an institutionalized appreciation of music: Considering the artists who are not rock 'n' roll, per your parameters, but worthy of acknowledgment, would we be better off figuratively tearing down the walls of the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame and rebuilding it from scratch to appreciate the artists like these, like Peter, Paul and Mary and Bobby Darin (et al) who influenced and defined music and pushed it forward? Grammys aside (and everybody has some gripe with the Grammys), would the ideal be one roof under which one could take in the joys of popular music, including r 'n' r, from the second half of the twentieth century on?[/quote:t0g7nqdy] In an ideal world, I would like to see the RNRHOF be for ROCK music. The specific definition of that word would need to be clearly stated by whatever body that was governing the nominations and inductions. A seperate American Popular Music museum and HOF could certainly be opened in addition to the RNRHOF.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 10:41 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":2rii6ixm]Listen, I'm all for your battle against the tyrranny of cool, and getting a few late salvos off against the terstorone-fueled bully teenagers of the late seventies declaring that rock rools and your favorite music is gay, but I'm not sure why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has to be torn down or absorbed in order to do it. I think there's real value to acknowledging what actual rock and roll is, was, and can be.[/quote:2rii6ixm] It seems a shame to acknowledge great music was made in temporal proximity yet at the end of the day we have to separate it. I heard Deep Purple and Steely Dan on the same station I heard Stevie Wonder and Bette Midler and Charlie Daniels as an impressionable ten-year-old in the summer of '73. I've never felt the need to separate any of it. And FWIW, I enjoyed my one visit to the R 'n' R Hall of Fame.
|
| TransMonk Sep 30 2009 10:53 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
Great music (a term that is toatally and completely subjective) doesn't need to be separated. IMO, it's all in the name of the joint. It's kind of like haveing a pie hall of fame that honors cakes, doughnuts, pastries and other dessert items that are not necessarily pies. It doesn't mean that those other desserts aren't wonderful and important...they're just not pies.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 10:59 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
We distinguish things when we analyze and explain them in order to better understand them and to better facilitate understanding. It doesn't mean there is anything necessarily wrong with a DJ seguing "I Will Survive" with "We Shall Overcome" and "We Will Rock You." Nor does it necessarily discourage further hybrids.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 11:07 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":25kd272v]We distinguish things when we analyze and explain them in order to better understand them and to better facilitate understanding.[/quote:25kd272v] Thanks for pointing that out. Tell me again about dinosaurs and computers when you get a chance.
|
| Edgy DC Sep 30 2009 11:16 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I certailnly don't mean to be a dick. (Maybe I just am.) I thought it was a valid response to your assertion that there is something shameful about "separating" music. Any museum has to make choices about what gets displayed and what doesn't. Those choices are a value judgment and what we're discussing is the standards on which that value judgment is made.
|
| G-Fafif Sep 30 2009 11:25 AM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
I'd say the Pie Hall of Fame set its own precedents by admitting so many doughnuts to begin with. Forgetting whether one likes them or not, here are the 500 songs that shaped rock 'n' roll by the Hall's reckoning. On first glance or perhaps intense contemplation, is this a canon that lives up to its lofty name?
|
| TransMonk Sep 30 2009 12:02 PM Re: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2010 |
|
[quote="G-Fafif":1ik8vq94]I'd say the Pie Hall of Fame set its own precedents by admitting so many doughnuts to begin with.[/quote:1ik8vq94] True enough. It's been going on this way for long enough that it is not going to change...and probably shouldn't.
|