R & R H of F Inductees
Tregembo
among five musical legends to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of
Fame.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation will hold its induction ceremony
March 13 at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan, the organization
announced Monday.
Also to be inducted into the class of 2006: 1980s New Wave band Blondie and
Southern rockers Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss, who founded A&M records in 1962, will receive a
lifetime achievement award in the non-performer category.
Inductees into the side-men category will be announced at a later date.
Musicians, industry professionals and journalists vote on the nominations.
Artists are eligible to be inducted into the Rock Hall after at least 25
years have passed since their first record was released.
Ray Arthur
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Crappiest induction list so far. But I guess it may some 10's of
thousands happy, at least the fans of Black Sabbath and The Sex Pistols
(no talent, folks - NOT the best thing since sliced bread, contrary to
first reports).
Lynyrd Skynyrd - yes, overdue and very deserving
Miles Davis - okay, but not as important to rock as he was to jazz (my
best attempt at understatement to date, yes)
Blondie - a blazing mediocrity (no Abbey Road, no London Calling, no
Dark Side Of The Moon, no Highway 61 Revisited, not even something
half-way good or essential as Marquee Moon - no memorable rock anthem
and signpost of generation like Hey Jude, or Bad Moon Rising, no Born
To Run, no Stop In The Name Of Love, no London Calling, no Pride and
Joy, no Refugee). GOD! Eurhythmics had a more talented musical
aggregation and essential sound. Does this open the door for Wham?
The Monkees? Boy George??
Boy George up there with Jimi Hendrix & The Rolling Stones? Tears For
Fears?
"Blondie", didn't have 1/10th the talent of The Carpenters.
If you possibly thought so before folks, they are really starting to
scrape the dregs now.
All the while continuing to overlook very important soloists
contributions, including (but not limited to):
Wynonie Harris
Jerry Butler
Dr. John (a.k.a Mac Rebennac) - nobody in the right mind will confuse
Blondie's contributions with the good doctor's, who have done their
homework
Carole King, singer-songwriter (what is the problem? Is she not as
important as James Taylor or Jackson Browne?)
Dionne Warwick (apparently not as important as Dusty Springfield?)
Peter Gabriel (solo artist, particularly for work between 1977 and
1984)
comment: apparently work is not as vital as Blondie, right? Or would
anyone with even 1/20th of a brain agree with that statement?
Warren Zevon (see first two brilliant studio albums for Warner
Brothers, and Stand In The Fire live album non-stop tour-de-force par
excellence)
Ry Cooder - obviously, well....see Dr. John argument
Tom Waits
Doug Sahm
Clifton Chenier
Every soloist listed above did far more to enrich rock and roll than
Blondie, a pedestrian band without an essential classic to be found
anywhere in their catalogue, but they sure had one of rock's most
charismatic beauty's for a few years, and the photographers sure
captured them in a good light. Where the beef? ...Er, excuse me,
timeless music? Or even one little WOW! tune, one little "awe" moment?
Is that too much to ask for? Apparently....
Better bands of the roughly same time:
J. Geils
The Cars
Little Feat
This is without a doubt, the most feckless, slack effort by the Rock
and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation or voting committee.
Roger, we're warming up slowly to your opinion.
- Lars
Eric Ramon
yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crappiest induction list so far. But I guess it may some 10's of
> thousands happy, at least the fans of Black Sabbath and The Sex Pistols
> (no talent, folks - NOT the best thing since sliced bread, contrary to
> first reports).
>
> Lynyrd Skynyrd - yes, overdue and very deserving
> Miles Davis - okay, but not as important to rock as he was to jazz (my
> best attempt at understatement to date, yes)
Miles Davis....next Bobby Orr will be inducted into the Baseball Hall
of Fame
>
> Blondie - a blazing mediocrity
for me Blondie and the Sex Pistols are the only ones worth having in a
Hall of Fame but we all know this particular HofF is rotten.
>
> If you possibly thought so before folks, they are really starting to
> scrape the dregs now.
Only because they ignore some who belong, as you point out below.
>
> All the while continuing to overlook very important soloists
> contributions, including (but not limited to):
>
> Wynonie Harris
> Jerry Butler
>
> Dr. John (a.k.a Mac Rebennac) - nobody in the right mind will confuse
> Blondie's contributions with the good doctor's, who have done their
> homework
>
> Carole King, singer-songwriter (what is the problem? Is she not as
> important as James Taylor or Jackson Browne?)
>
> Dionne Warwick (apparently not as important as Dusty Springfield?)
>
> Peter Gabriel (solo artist, particularly for work between 1977 and
> 1984)
> comment: apparently work is not as vital as Blondie, right? Or would
> anyone with even 1/20th of a brain agree with that statement?
>
> Warren Zevon (see first two brilliant studio albums for Warner
> Brothers, and Stand In The Fire live album non-stop tour-de-force par
> excellence)
>
> Ry Cooder - obviously, well....see Dr. John argument
>
> Tom Waits
>
> Doug Sahm
>
> Clifton Chenier
>
Johnny Burnette (Rockabilly Trio) still not in, right? This is simply
NOT a rock 'n roll thing, it's some kind of easy listening FM station
Hall. And it's not going to get any better!
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Eric Ramon wrote:
> yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
><snip for focus point/brevity/etc.>
>
> for me Blondie and the Sex Pistols are the only ones worth having in a
> Hall of Fame but we all know this particular HofF is rotten.
So image (alone - re: attitude, poseur, etc.) can outweigh music
(imagine any half-decent critic like Dave Marsh, Greil Marcus, Pete
Guralnick or Robert Christgau, blind from birth, and have them as a
committee audition or re-audition acts for induction in Rock Hall), are
you saying, for purposes of standards or criteria for induction?
I'd be interested in the response, not only from you, but Eric I'd like
to here from you and any interested parties.
Steve Carras
yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tregembo wrote:
> > NEW YORK Nov 28, 2005 - Black Sabbath, Miles Davis and the Sex Pistols are
> > among five musical legends to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of
> > Fame.
> >
> > The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation will hold its induction ceremony
> > March 13 at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan, the organization
> > announced Monday.
> >
> > Also to be inducted into the class of 2006: 1980s New Wave band Blondie and
> > Southern rockers Lynyrd Skynyrd.
> >
> > Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss, who founded A&M records in 1962, will receive a
> > lifetime achievement award in the non-performer category.
> > Inductees into the side-men category will be announced at a later date.
> >
> > Musicians, industry professionals and journalists vote on the nominations.
> > Artists are eligible to be inducted into the Rock Hall after at least 25
> > years have passed since their first record was released.
> >
> >
> > Ray Arthur
>
> Crappiest induction list so far. But I guess it may some 10's of
> thousands happy, at least the fans of Black Sabbath and The Sex Pistols
> (no talent, folks - NOT the best thing since sliced bread, contrary to
> first reports).
>
> Lynyrd Skynyrd - yes, overdue and very deserving
> Miles Davis - okay, but not as important to rock as he was to jazz (my
> best attempt at understatement to date, yes)
>
> Blondie - a blazing mediocrity (no Abbey Road, no London Calling, no
> Dark Side Of The Moon, no Highway 61 Revisited, not even something
> half-way good or essential as Marquee Moon - no memorable rock anthem
> and signpost of generation like Hey Jude, or Bad Moon Rising, no Born
> To Run, no Stop In The Name Of Love, no London Calling, no Pride and
> Joy, no Refugee). GOD! Eurhythmics had a more talented musical
> aggregation and essential sound. Does this open the door for Wham?
> The Monkees? Boy George??
> Boy George up there with Jimi Hendrix & The Rolling Stones? Tears For
> Fears?
> "Blondie", didn't have 1/10th the talent of The Carpenters.
>
They're not rock.Jazz is nigger music and linked to rock and rap.Jazz
artists have always like rock and Backstreet Boys. They're big among
teens.
BL Bleanie
"Steve Carras" <gca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133204502.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>nothing worth reading.
As to the inductions. Blondie had quite a few good pop songs that were big,
and while she was hardly the essence of punk she helped make it a tad less
alienating to the suburban kids.
There's enough precedent in the HOF to suggest this is not a bad nomination.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
BL Bleanie wrote:
> "Steve Carras" <gca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1133204502.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >nothing worth reading.
>
>
> As to the inductions. Blondie had quite a few good pop songs that were big,
> and while she was hardly the essence of punk she helped make it a tad less
> alienating to the suburban kids.
But do they deserve to go in ahead ahead of Peter Gabriel? Were their
pop songs really better than Eurhythmics? Do they have a stronger
catalogue than Little Feat, or J. Geils Band or The Cars?
>
> There's enough precedent in the HOF to suggest this is not a bad nomination.
Should a bad trend be repeated to justify an earlier one?
-L.I.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Mike G wrote:
>
> > I have no complaints [...edit...]
> though I don't own any Blondie albums myself.
L.I.: Case in point
> And, yes, they have plenty of durable songs with popularity that cuts across many
> demographic lines.
I think this was true disco-era Bee Gees, and 3 Dog Night before them.
Actually, when you use those exact adjective-filled phrases like
"plenty of durable songs" and "popularity that cuts across many
demographic lines", I thought of a musical skyscraper like Stevie
Wonder, not these pygmies, capable of being mistake for toe-dirt.
Proverb of the Day:
"Mike's a bitch, and then you die!"
mrleel...@yahoo.com
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Agreed.
Also, where are Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels? ("Jenny Take A
Ride", "Devil With A Blue Dress", etc.) Mitch Ryder had more rock and
roll is littlest toenail than Debbie Harry had in her whole soul. Dig
it.
-L. Ingersoll
BL Bleanie
<yougotl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133207579....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> BL Bleanie wrote:
> > "Steve Carras" <gca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1133204502.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >nothing worth reading.
> >
> >
> > As to the inductions. Blondie had quite a few good pop songs that were
big,
> > and while she was hardly the essence of punk she helped make it a tad
less
> > alienating to the suburban kids.
>
> But do they deserve to go in ahead ahead of Peter Gabriel?
What difference does the time frame make? -Everyone- will be in it
eventually. :)
Were their
> pop songs really better than Eurhythmics? Do they have a stronger
> catalogue than Little Feat,
No.
or J. Geils Band
About even.
or The Cars?
Nah, the Cars were ahead of them there.
> >
> > There's enough precedent in the HOF to suggest this is not a bad
nomination.
>
> Should a bad trend be repeated to justify an earlier one?
No one established it was a bad trend.
>
> -L.I.
>
Eric Ramon
Sorry, James Taylor, Miles Davis and Pete Seeger have to be in first.
Assuming the Hall is around in 20-odd years you can expect "rockers"
like Norah Jones to get in before the Ventures, provided Norah Jones
has a mini-comeback at that time.
I think Black Sabbath is in as much for Ozzie's being on that reality
show as for anything the group ever did musically.
Eric Ramon
re: Blondie, I'd put them in for their pre-disco work. I wish they
hadn't done that Georgio Moroder stuff and I choose to ignore it. I
like the Gary Valentine Blondie. The Sex Pistols fit your description
better but *what* an attitude! What a flameout!
bip...@sbcglobal.net
>Electric Light Orchestra (though I have little interest in this
>band, beyond their first album)
Why do you feel you have to add that line in paraenthesis? Some on the
Newsgroup might even respect your opinions even more if you could admit
that Jeff Lynne's Electric Light Orchestra should have been inducted
LONG ago.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
>
> Just for the heck of it, I skimmed through my own albums and
> picked out the 20 still-omitted artists who seem most likely to
> get in:
> Alice Cooper
> Cat Stevens
> Cheap Trick
> Donovan
> Electric Light Orchestra (though I have little interest in this
> band, beyond their first album)
> Gram Parsons/Flying Burrito Brothers
> Iggy Pop/The Stooges
> Jethro Tull
> Joe Cocker
> Lou Reed (solo)
> Patti Smith
> Peter Gabriel
> Procol Harum
> Randy Newman
> The Monkees
> The Moody Blues
> The Turtles
> Todd Rundgren
> Yes
>
> Mentionable honor: ELP, the Zombies, Ry Cooder, Captain Beefheart
This looks like roll call at a Caucasain caucus.
BL Bleanie
<bip...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1133213637.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Don't know about long ago but they're certainly as worthy as anybody.
>
Steve Carras
BL Bleanie wrote:
> "Steve Carras" <gca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1133204502.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >nothing worth reading.
>
>
> As to the inductions. Blondie had quite a few good pop songs that were big,
> and while she was hardly the essence of punk she helped make it a tad less
> alienating to the suburban kids.
>
yougotl...@yahoo.com
except that, that title in all honesty truly belongs to Mike G., and
fortunately, or unfortunately, as the case may be, it's not even close.
He qualified on other counts though, and not certainly not by playing
the race card, to properly avoid conflating the issue.
-L.I.
bip...@sbcglobal.net
Click on video for something to jog your memory.
Bob Roman
> .Jazz is nigger music and linked to rock and rap.
Steve, my friend, is this some kind of irony that went over my head? or did
you really just make a more direct racist statement than Brojack ever
dreamed of making in public?
--
Bob Roman
Glenn
Blondie's 1976 debut album is both a send-up and embrace of girl
group pop, along with nods to 60s garage, sci-fi, pop psychedelia and
other then-underappreciated (at least in US) pop culture artifacts --
certainly among kids who were actually kids in 1977, 78, 79 etc. The
rather unique combination of influences that Blondie recycled,
compacted & loved would ultimately morph into a sound that was all
their own by albums #2 and #3. If you already know the early Blondie
albums (say, the first three), know how Debbie Harry got remarkably
smarter, funnier and more versatile as the albums progressed, have some
sense of how cutting-edge their mix of irony and humor was compared to
pop of the time (just think of the Top 40 dreck they were playing
against) and still think they don't belong in the RRHOF, that's fine.
But if your disapproval is based primarily on their handful of big hits
("The Tide Is High", "Call Me" and "Heart of Glass"), you
might do well to give their earlier stuff a listen.
--Glenn
NP: Luna - Slide ep
Cherry
Blondie in the HOF before the Ventures, Jan and Dean, the Turtles,
Procul Harum, Sir Douglas Quintet, Moody Blues, Zombies. One could go
on and on. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is big joke.
Miles Davis?! Is the Jazz HOF going to elect John Lennon?!
Brett A. Pasternack
> NEW YORK Nov 28, 2005 - Black Sabbath, Miles Davis and the Sex Pistols are
> among five musical legends to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of
> Fame.
>
> The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation will hold its induction ceremony
> March 13 at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan, the organization
> announced Monday.
>
> Also to be inducted into the class of 2006: 1980s New Wave band Blondie and
> Southern rockers Lynyrd Skynyrd.
I'm surprised but not upset that John Mellencamp didn't get in. I'm
upset and somewhat surprised that Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five
didn't get in. And I'm quite upset and somewhat surprised that the Dave
Clark Five didn't get in.
Sabbath: Not really my cup of tea, but deserving.
Miles: Obviously deserving of induction into A Hall Of Fame; the
question is whether this is the right one. Or, alternatively, if the
work he did that was more rock-related (e.g. Bitches Brew) was enough. I
wouldn't have put him in, but I wouldn't really argue, either.
Pistols: Just too small a body of work. I don't think they belong.
Blondie: I like them, and I don't have a problem with them getting in,
but I think they probably should have fallen a bit short. I'd certainly
put them behind the two passed-over Fives, and behind a whole bunch of
others who weren't nominated.
Skynyrd: Again, not my thing, but deserving.
Of the artists not even nominated. I continue to argue most vociforously
for The Hollies and Tommy James. Eric's suggestion of The Rock And Roll
Trio is a damn good one, too. Genesis should get in, too. And I still
think they should rectify the error of inducting Smokey Robinson by
himself for the work of The Miracles.
> Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss, who founded A&M records in 1962, will receive a
> lifetime achievement award in the non-performer category.
Over Gamble and Huff? Insane! WHEN is that pair going to get their due?
> Inductees into the side-men category will be announced at a later date.
That's the best news here. They haven't inducted any in this category
since 2003. With only 11 in, there are certainly good candidates out
there. How about Bill Black, for starters? I'd argue for Darlene Love,
for her contribution as a backing vocalist, as well.
Who else should go in as a sideman?
Cherry
Nov 28, 8:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s
From: Mike G <mikeg24...@aol.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:23:51 GMT
Local: Mon, Nov 28 2005 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: R & R H of F Inductees
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Except maybe the Moody Blues, there isn't one of those names which
I think I should be admitted before Blondie.
Jan and Dean? You've gotta be kidding.
Nope, not kidding at all. Jan and Dean had hit songs all throughout the
early 60's and were a personal favorite of mine to be sure. I loved
everything they did. Jan and Dean defined good time music and had an
important relationship with Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys. Jan and
Dean belong enshrined in the hall.
BL Bleanie
"Cherry" <cherry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133284788.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So where does one draw the line?
>
BL Bleanie
"Mike G" <mikeg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mikeg24859-0B33F...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> "Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > I continue to argue most vociforously
> > for The Hollies and Tommy James.
>
> if TJ never gets in at all.
Perhaps as a producer.
Todd Lucas
> > for The Hollies and Tommy James.
>
> if TJ never gets in at all.
There's no reason why The Hollies shouldn't have been inducted or at
least nominated by now.
Todd
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Mike G wrote:
> I saved my "handicapping" post from a few months ago, just to see
> how I did. Pretty well, I'd say.
>
<snip for point focus/brevity/etc.>
> "...Mellencamp is a complete mediocrity, but this isn't necessarily a handicap here."
I don't think you handicapped Melloncamp fairly at all. "American
Jubilee" is a very worthy creative highpoint, and in tracks like
"Peaceful World" from "Cuttin' Heads", is shows how his music has
continued to evolve. -L.I.
Tim T
-----Um, how about for inventing a rock genre?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sabbath#1970s:
It would probably be futile to catalogue the later bands influenced by
Black Sabbath; a starting point in such a list would be "every heavy
metal band".
Doom metal, a metal-subgenre, takes its name directly from a Black
Sabbath song, Hand of Doom.
Joey Jordison of nu metal band, Slipknot also credits Black Sabbath as
being the heaviest band around.
The band rarely received any critical praise ("blundering bozos" was one
description) but nonetheless, they are widely acknowledged as some of
the most influential pioneers in the heavy metal field. Ozzy Osbourne
himself received an NME award for "godlike genius" in 2004.
Some of the incidents and characters in the spoof rock documentary This
Is Spinal Tap are based on Black Sabbath. For example the Stonehenge
stage set idea in the film was taken from a real stage used by Black
Sabbath for their Born Again Tour. In contrast to the set in the film,
in which Stonehenge was made too small to be very imposing on stage, the
Black Sabbath version of Stonehenge was in fact too large to fit in many
of the arenas the band played in. The eventual fate of the set is not
clear, although Iommi has said it was probably abandoned on a loading
dock somewhere.
Finally, Black Sabbath has inspired bands outside of the heavy metal
genre. The Cardigans, for instance, cite them as an influence and
occasionally cover their songs on their own albums and (more often) B-sides.
LRossi3940
"I think Black Sabbath is in as much for Ozzie's being on that reality
show as for anything the group ever did musically."
Creating a whole genre of music that is still going strong some 35
years later doesn't qualify them musically ? Their influence is so far
reaching and undisputable. While other bands in their era got more
recognition in the press(Led Zeppelin), sold more albums (Grand Funk)
or were generally more popular (Kiss), no one in their genre is more
respected by their peers or fans than Sabbath. Every kid, after 1970,
that ever picked up a guitar learned "Paranoid" or "Iron Man". They
were/are the peoples band and their induction is long overdue.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Haplessly, RJ, there are some things as you can see that we have to
deal with here beside the GOOD (fun and informative discussions), and
the BAD (the petty squabbling and garden-variety animosity), and that
as you've surmised is the UGLY (racial animus). Until we (as a group)
can come up with a way to properly and effectively put a stigma on this
kind of speech of the pernicious and most unwelcome kind, we may be
stuck with it.
For most normal people, the kind of behavior displayed above (as no
excuse has been offered for by the provider to now), or commonly by
Backwards Jack, the thought is either arrested before it gets started
either by an innate or trained sense of shame, or at least kept in
check before it excapes their lips or their pen by enlightened
self-interest (fear of looking bad). Steve Crass and Backwards Jack
lack a proper sense of shame.
I say quarantining is the probably the best patch we can put on the
problem of these virilent viruses. Unfortunately, they do at least
provide e-companionship for the truly hard-up. Having the like of
this around makes dealing with Marx or Mike G. seem like a busman's
holiday.
-Lars
memo to Billious Burp: that's a nickname, the other is a diminutive of
Lawrence. But you're pretending you don't have the brains to see
that. But we all know pretense is nothing new for the self-described
Man of Character
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> "Cherry" <cherry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I really liked Blondie back in the day and owned all their albums. But
> > Blondie in the HOF before the Ventures, Jan and Dean, the Turtles,
> > Procul Harum, Sir Douglas Quintet, Moody Blues, Zombies. One could go
> > on and on. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is big joke.
>
> I think I should be admitted before Blondie.
>
> Jan and Dean? You've gotta be kidding.
For once, Mike, we agree on something.
No way that any of the names above, except the Moody Blues, should be
in the hall of fame.
Sir Douglas even being nominated is a joke. I'd put Jan & Dean in
before them. At least Jan was an early studio whiz, maybe the first
rock and roll artist to dabble in his own studio effects and
overdubbing.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
> > There's no reason why The Hollies shouldn't have been inducted or at
> > least nominated by now.
>
> More than one, actually. Shortage of good material,
A matter of opinion that many would disagree with.
> copycat-isms,
Who did they copy in your opinion? Most of their 60s hits are pretty
unique sounding to me, and when you hear something by them, you
defintely know it's them, because of their distinct harmonies.
> no notable albums, saccharine, no "vision," etc.
Just what were the notable albums and vision from by Gene Pitney, Percy
Sledge, Del Shannon, and other inductees who did not have as prolific a
career as the Hollies did?
> I'm not saying they shouldn't get in at all, but at this early
> stage...no way.
How do you figure this as an "early stage" for the Hollies?
They've been eligible for about 17 or 18 years already.
BobbyM
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133316801.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nominating Sir Douglas might be a joke, especially if you only consider
record sales or chart action, but Doug Sahm merits consideration in some
manner. A career that spanned 5 decades, the leader of Sir Douglas in all
its incarnations, quite a few solo releases, as well as a founding member of
the Texas Tornados.
Uni
Don't wish to start an argument, but, I feel, Jan & Dean were better
singers, than the Beach Boys.
But you are correct. Even though I never followed Jan & Dean, they had a
nice string or hits, minor and major.
Uni
Sav...@aol.com
There's plenty of artists with 5 decade careers, that's not anything
that makes an artist a hall of famer without at least several
significant recordings along the way. The Sir Douglas Quintet
essentially made one single of note, and no albums of note. There are
literally hundreds of more qualified acts.
Here's just a small list of artists who are much more qualified than
Doug Sahm:
Chicago
Three Dog Night
Moody Blues
Jethro Tull
Clovers
Johnny Ace
Dave Clark Five
TJ & Shondells
Johnny Rivers
Rush
Yes
Hollies
Cars
Van Halen
Jerry Butler
Joe Tex
Joe Simon
Doobie Brothers
Carole King
Genesis
Deep Purple
Chubby Checker
Yes, Chubby Checker. The first rock and roll artist to become widely
popular with adults, and a huge influence on the music scene of the
early 60s. Even Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley made "Twist" albums. Great
live performer too.
BobbyM
"Uni" <no.e...@no.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:Qj9jf.90170$xd2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
Even though they started out before the Beach Boys, they'll forever be in
the Beach Boys' shadow and seen mainly as Beach Boys wannabe's. While the
Beach Boys outgrew the beach and cars, Jan & Dean did not have that chance
due to Jan's accident.
BobbyM
news:1133324714.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Johnny Ace
I'm not saying that some of the folks on your list don't deserve
consideration and I even agree that some should definitely get in before
Sahm. However, just because you may be unfamiliar with Sahm's entire body
of work and his albums didn't sell millions doesn't mean his work was
insignificant. Remember, it's not people like you who have no knowledge of
Sahm except for "She's About a Mover" and possibly "Mendocino" who are
voting for this particular Hall of Fame.
I won't ask you to analyze your entire list at this moment. For starters,
I'll just ask that you list Ace's qualifications which place him over Sahm.
This is a guy that's remembered for a bullet to the brain more than any song
that was released during his lifetime.
Uni
A very good point, Bobby. Never thought of it that way. I like their
tunes, but the surf related stuff, does grow old fast. But you can tell
from their early recordings, compared to the later ones, the record
company (Liberty?) dumped a lot of money into the sound quality. I still
believe "Linda" (1962?) was recorded yesterday :-)
Uni
>
>
BB Leanie
"BobbyM" <massey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dmj9ga$hi$1...@news2.kornet.net...
GV they dropped like a rock.
BB Leanie
> <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > More than one, actually. Shortage of good material,
>>
>> A matter of opinion that many would disagree with.
>
Nah. They had a lot of good material, and a unique sound. But again, were
they GREAT or were they just another very good band in an age of Very Good
bands?
>
>> > copycat-isms,
>>
>> Who did they copy in your opinion? Most of their 60s hits are pretty
>> unique sounding to me, and when you hear something by them, you
>> defintely know it's them, because of their distinct harmonies.
>
> CCR, British Invasion, Nilsson, etc. And having good harmonies is
> nothing new.
Again, you're off here. They predate Nilsson and CCR by quite a bit. And
their sound -was- unique because as with any harmony situation, the voices
involved make or break the sound. They had the right people at the right
time.
>
>> > I'm not saying they shouldn't get in at all, but at this early
>> > stage...no way.
>>
>> How do you figure this as an "early stage" for the Hollies?
>> They've been eligible for about 17 or 18 years already.
>
> The "early stage" of the Hall of Fame, silly. There's, what, maybe
> 150 performers in the Hall so far? The Hollies do not deserve to
> rank within that number.
That I won't argue.
Eric Ramon
I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I'm saying I
believe those who are responsible for inducting them don't have a clue
as to why they belong musically and more likely nominated and then
voted for Black Sabbath because they'd seen Ozzy and Sharon on TV. Is
that cynical or realistic?
BL Bleanie
"Eric Ramon" <Era...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133374607.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Both. More than likely.
>
BL Bleanie
> can't rip those acts off. For instance, just look at how many
> younger acts people like, say, Bowie and Madonna borrow from.
It was more than a little earlier and only anything they did in the late
60's or early 70's might fall into your theory.
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> >
> > Who did they copy in your opinion?
>
> CCR, British Invasion, Nilsson, etc.
I know of one song where they sound like CCR and it's from 1972. And
they sort of WERE the British Invasion, having placed a song on the
U.S. charts by April of 1964. By late 1965, they started having big
hits here.
>
> > > I'm not saying they shouldn't get in at all, but at this early
> > > stage...no way.
> >
> > How do you figure this as an "early stage" for the Hollies?
> > They've been eligible for about 17 or 18 years already.
>
> The "early stage" of the Hall of Fame, silly. There's, what, maybe
> 150 performers in the Hall so far? The Hollies do not deserve to
> rank within that number.
Not so sure. Any artist whose first record was released after 1980
isn't even eligible yet, so they don't count. The Rascals were
inducted in 1997 and The Lovin' Spoonful in 2000. I'd certainly rank
The Hollies as their equals, if not better.
Todd
Mark Dintenfass
<mikeg24859-2E95B...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Mike G
<mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > The Rascals were
> > inducted in 1997 and The Lovin' Spoonful in 2000. I'd certainly rank
> > The Hollies as their equals, if not better.
>
> I'd concede that the Lovin' Spoonful are one of the more dubious
> HOF inductees (though I personally love 'em), but I'd say the
> Rascals are quite a-ways above the Hollies.
>
> The Hollies don't have any songs with the lasting cultural
> penetration of, say, "Good Lovin'," "Groovin'" and "A Beautiful
> Morning."
>
> Seems like years since I've just "stumbled on" a Hollies song
> playing somewhere.
I'm not supporting the Hollies here, but the following are all in
regular rotation on my local oldies station:
Bus Stop
Long Cool Woman In A Black Dress
He Ain't Heavy
And they occasionally play "Carrie Ann" and "On A Carousel."
I'm not sure what "cultural penetration" means exactly, but I bet
casual listeners hear them about as often as they hear the Rascals.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Eric Ramon
> > inducted in 1997 and The Lovin' Spoonful in 2000. I'd certainly rank
> > The Hollies as their equals, if not better.
>
> HOF inductees (though I personally love 'em), but I'd say the
> Rascals are quite a-ways above the Hollies.
>
> The Hollies don't have any songs with the lasting cultural
> penetration of, say, "Good Lovin'," "Groovin'" and "A Beautiful
> Morning."
>
> Seems like years since I've just "stumbled on" a Hollies song
> playing somewhere.
I think it's clear from your own body of work (i.e. your posts) that
you are more a fan of rock than of rock 'n roll and that there's most
likely a time cut-off for you. 1966 maybe? Anything before that and you
seem to miss the point. Now don't quibble with me about the date!
The Lovin' Spoonful is hardly a dubious selection. The Hollies belong,
Chubby Checker belongs. The Ventures too. All of them should go in
before the Moody Blues, who are too pretentious and stole the name from
the real Moody Blues!!! Do I have to explain that to you?
If this were the Rock Hall of Fame you'd be on firmer ground.
Unfortunately it's the Corrupt, Pat on the Back, Safe Hall of Fame.
But, to your point, looked at in a certain way I suppose artists that
were "fun" don't qualify because they lack seriousness....but that's so
wrong I can hardly start to argue against it. Somewhere along the line
rock got defined as being about saying something. Yet I prefer Keep-a
Knockin' to Nights in White Satin. Da Doo Ron Ron is superior to
anything James Taylor ever recorded.
Anyhow, about this "lasting cultural penetration", it suggests that
you're rating music from back then by how popular it is now and if you
judge it that way you're cutting off some really big stuff.
Mark Dintenfass
Eric Ramon <Era...@aol.com> wrote:
> But, to your point, looked at in a certain way I suppose artists that
> were "fun" don't qualify because they lack seriousness....but that's so
> wrong I can hardly start to argue against it. Somewhere along the line
> rock got defined as being about saying something. Yet I prefer Keep-a
> Knockin' to Nights in White Satin. Da Doo Ron Ron is superior to
> anything James Taylor ever recorded.
Couldn't agree more. And Wynonie Harris should be in the HoF before any
of the people mentioned in this thread.
BL Bleanie
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > The Rascals were
> > inducted in 1997 and The Lovin' Spoonful in 2000. I'd certainly rank
> > The Hollies as their equals, if not better.
>
> HOF inductees (though I personally love 'em), but I'd say the
> Rascals are quite a-ways above the Hollies.
>
> The Hollies don't have any songs with the lasting cultural
> penetration of, say, "Good Lovin'," "Groovin'" and "A Beautiful
> Morning."
That's silly...
>
> Seems like years since I've just "stumbled on" a Hollies song
> playing somewhere.
Personal anecdotes don't induct musicians.
BL Bleanie
"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:301120051553509875%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
LRossi3940
A little of both. More cynical, than realistic. I think the RnRHoF
finally caved in to public pressure. There were a tremendous amount of
fans, musicians and critics wondering why Sabbath was being screwed.
BL Bleanie
> Mark Dintenfass wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what "cultural penetration" means exactly, but I bet
> > casual listeners hear them about as often as they hear the Rascals.
>
> record-store play, mainstream FM radio, etc. They don't really
> manage that inherent, emotional nostalgia appeal, like the Big
> Chill-type acts. They're just not part of contemporary culture
> anymore. You have to dig up "oldies" stations to hear them. About
> the only time I come across the group is when TCM shows "After the
> Fox."
OK. Point taken.
>
T P Uschanov
> The Hollies don't have any songs with the lasting cultural
> penetration of, say, "Good Lovin'," "Groovin'" and "A Beautiful
> Morning."
That's a very parochial view of things. In many parts of the
world, including practically the entirety of Europe, the Rascals
are simply nonentities compared to the Hollies. In Britain, for
instance, they only ever had two hits, of which only one was a
major one: "Groovin'" made it to #8 and "A Girl Like You" to #37.
Whereas the Hollies have had eighteen Top 10 hits, of which
thirteen were Top 5 hits.
On last.fm, which compiles charts of tracks registered users
worldwide play on their computers, there are 2,908 listeners for
the Rascals (combining both versions of their name), while the
Hollies have had 11,087 listeners. The three songs you mention
have had 910, 733 and 433 listeners, while the Hollies' three
most popular songs have had 2,013, 1,964 and 1,734 listeners.
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Hollies/+charts
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Rascals/+charts
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Young+Rascals/+charts
--
"I have tried too, in my time, to be a philosopher; but, I don't
know how, cheerfulness was always breaking in." --Oliver Edwards
T P Uschanov tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi +358 (0)40 584 2720
Visit my home page! http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/
Mark Dintenfass
<mikeg24859-B6B12...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Mike G
<mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The Hollies belong,
> > Chubby Checker belongs. The Ventures too. All of them should go in
> > before the Moody Blues
>
> Everyone has an opinion. Chubby Checker? Good grief. You probably
> won't live to see that one.
It's not that unthinkable. "The Twist" was a significant cultural
phenomenon in the early 60s and Checker was the embodiment of the
thing. (For the first time, r'n'r penetrated the grown-up world, so to
speak. They were even twisting, along with other sorts of penetrating,
in the Kennedy White House.)
T P Uschanov
> The Hollies don't turn up much on movie soundtracks, television,
The Internet Movie Database lists six movies and one TV movie made
since 2000 with something by them on the soundtrack, but just one
movie and one TV series with something by the Rascals.
> record-store play, mainstream FM radio, etc.
Just a while ago I heard an entire Hollies compilation played
as muzak at a mall. I don't think I've ever heard any Rascals
song apart from "Good Lovin'" in a similar situation.
> You have to dig up "oldies" stations to hear them.
Or live in a country other than the United States, as most
people do, including the Hollies.
T P Uschanov
> And Wynonie Harris should be in the HoF before any of the people
> mentioned in this thread.
I must be one of the very few people in the world whose all-time
favourite vocalists include both Wynonie Harris and Allan Clarke.
Mark Dintenfass
<mikeg24859-29B96...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Mike G
<mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
> And the fact remains...the Rascals are in the HOF, and the
> Hollies aren't. So, why do you think that is?
Ahmet Ertugan (The Rascals recorded for Atlantic.)
Mark Dintenfass
<tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> > And Wynonie Harris should be in the HoF before any of the people
> > mentioned in this thread.
>
> I must be one of the very few people in the world whose all-time
> favourite vocalists include both Wynonie Harris and Allan Clarke.
Maybe I should check out Allan Clarke. :-)
BTW, Wynonie's great but Joe Turner is better.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
original albums (or the first 3) are musts. They had talent to burn -
rock and roll, pop, r&b, folk, even a little rag-time flavored thing
with Daydream. They could do it all, and did, and there 1966 was
almost as good as anybody's except The Beatles, artistically speaking,
and they even gave them a run for their money that year, before the
infamous denouement on the tail of drug bust in Frisco toward the end
of that year.
Hollies spoke to me with:
Look Through Any Window
Long Cool Woman
On A Carousel
and Carrie-Ann was okay.
Tom
T P Uschanov
> Chart talk.
Omit the bit about the British charts if you like. That leaves:
"That's a very parochial view of things. In many parts of the
world, including practically the entirety of Europe, the Rascals
are simply nonentities compared to the Hollies."
> A decent argument, but I don't know enough about last.fm's
> demographic to know whether I should grant its contents any
> weight.
On the site one can see a listing of the top twenty fans of each
artist in descending order. Among those of the Hollies' top fans
to list their age, the average is 27.6 years, while the average
age of the Rascals' fans is 28.4 years.
> And the fact remains...the Rascals are in the HOF, and the
> Hollies aren't. So, why do you think that is?
The answer is the same that has been mooted at the time of the
announcement of the new inductees every year since this
newsgroup began: because the HoF is the brainchild of a self-
congratulatory coterie of American music industry bigwigs
with an often only scant regard for the history of rock music.
(In this case, it may also be a factor that at the head of them
is Ahmet Ertegun, founder of the Rascals' record label.)
T P Uschanov
> Maybe I should check out Allan Clarke. :-)
If you've heard the Hollies (pre-1972), then you've heard him.
I don't know that much about his solo output.
> BTW, Wynonie's great but Joe Turner is better.
Wynonie's great but Joe Turner is as great, I'd say.
Mark Dintenfass
<mikeg24859-66DA5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Mike G
<mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > And the fact remains...the Rascals are in the HOF, and the
> > > Hollies aren't. So, why do you think that is?
> >
> > Ahmet Ertugan (The Rascals recorded for Atlantic.)
>
> Naturally, the reason has to be a case of "corruption," rather
> than any legitimate criterion. I bet Ertegun is the same jerk who
> pushed in Led Zeppelin and Aretha Franklin ahead of Paul Revere
> and Mitch Ryder!
You asked a question and I gave the factual answer. It is no news that
Atlantic artists have fared particularly well in the HoF because
Ertugan is very powerful within that organization.
Why must you be unpleasant even when people are having a civil
conversation?
Mark Dintenfass
<tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Mike G <mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Chart talk.
>
> Omit the bit about the British charts if you like. That leaves:
> "That's a very parochial view of things. In many parts of the
> world, including practically the entirety of Europe, the Rascals
> are simply nonentities compared to the Hollies."
>
> > A decent argument, but I don't know enough about last.fm's
> > demographic to know whether I should grant its contents any
> > weight.
>
> On the site one can see a listing of the top twenty fans of each
> artist in descending order. Among those of the Hollies' top fans
> to list their age, the average is 27.6 years, while the average
> age of the Rascals' fans is 28.4 years.
>
> > And the fact remains...the Rascals are in the HOF, and the
> > Hollies aren't. So, why do you think that is?
>
> The answer is the same that has been mooted at the time of the
> announcement of the new inductees every year since this
> newsgroup began: because the HoF is the brainchild of a self-
> congratulatory coterie of American music industry bigwigs
> with an often only scant regard for the history of rock music.
> (In this case, it may also be a factor that at the head of them
> is Ahmet Ertegun, founder of the Rascals' record label.)
Just to be clear, Atlantic was, IMO, the greatest of all the labels in
the 50s and 60s, and Ertegun earned his power by making it so. I don't
think he's pushed a lot of undeserving artists in, but in close cases
the Atlantic artists certainly have had an edge.
Mark Dintenfass
<mikeg24859-B4E43...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Mike G
<mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > You asked a question and I gave the factual answer.
>
> It's not "factual." It's conjecture, unless you can produce quotes
> from committee members saying "Yeah, well, we let Ahmet have the
> Rascals."
>
> > Why must you be unpleasant even when people are having a civil
> > conversation?
>
> It's not pleasant to accuse Ertegun of dishonest favoritism.
I should have known better.
Plonk!
Brett A. Pasternack
> In article
> <mikeg24859-B6B12...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Mike G
> <mikeg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>The Hollies belong,
>>>Chubby Checker belongs. The Ventures too. All of them should go in
>>>before the Moody Blues
>>
>>Everyone has an opinion. Chubby Checker? Good grief. You probably
>>won't live to see that one.
>
>
> It's not that unthinkable. "The Twist" was a significant cultural
> phenomenon in the early 60s and Checker was the embodiment of the
> thing.
It's somewhat unthinkable after his full-page ad in Billboard where he
said that he really deserves the Nobel Prize, and that if they do elect
them into the Hall, they should erect a statue of him in a separate part
of the Hall (on a thirty foot pedestal!) so he wouldn't be lumped in
with all of the others. If it weren't for that, he might have gotten in
by now.
The rant is hilarious, and entertainingly ungrammatical:
This is my message to the Nobel Prize nominators and the nominators of
the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Should you choose me I'll consider it
honorable. However, I have conditions for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
To Place the "Twist" symbol that's on Chubby Checker's Beef Jerky, this
statue on top of a thirty foot or so pedestal in the courtyard of the
Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. I would like to be alone thank you. I changed
the business. I am often call the wheel that Rock rolls on as long as
people are dancing apart to the beat of the music they enjoy. Before
"Alexander Graham Bell" Š no Telephone. Before "Thomas Edison" Š no
Electric light. Before "Dr. George Washington Carver" Š no Oil from seed
or cloning of plants. Before "Henry Ford" Š no V-8 Engine. Before "Walt
Disney" Š no Animated cartoons. Before Chubby Checker Š no "Dancing
Apart to the Beat." What is "Dancing Apart to the Beat?" Dancing Apart
to the Beat is the dance that we do when we dance apart to the beat of
anybody's music and before "Chubby Checker" it could not be found!
Elvis Presley is the King of Rock & Roll, no doubt, and we love him.
However, Rock & Roll was already here. He just became the King of it.
The Beatles, who we all love so dearly, their likeness was done by the
Beach Boys, Buddy Holly and the Crickets. But it's evident that they did
it much, much better. Hank Ballard wrote and recorded the "Twist". The
inner city kids made a dance to that song. The record died on the radio.
Radio stopped playing the record. The "Twist" was dead. No one was going
to hear the record and no one was ever going to see the dance. We
re-recorded the record and campaigned the song and the dance at DJ
record dance parties in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Radio stations
started to play the "Twist" by Chubby Checker. We finally made it to
American Bandstand and showed the world what it was. Chubby Checker
changed everything. He gave movement to a music that never had this
movement before. The styles changed. The nightclub scene is forever
changed. Chubby Checker gave birth to aerobics.
He game to music a movement that could not be found unless you were
trained at some studio learning something other than dancing apart to
the beat. It's easy. It's fun. The "Twist" the only song, since time
began, to become number one twice by the same artist. Oh yes, we're
talking about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. But lets face the truth.
This is Nobel Prize Territory.
The "Twist" is very recognizable when you dance apart to the beat. But
"The Pony", two on one side and two on the other side, the dance that I
introduced in 1961 is the biggest dance of the century. They do it to
everything, in the 70's, 80's, 90's and now 2000's. And what about my
"Fly"? To explain it better, throw your hands in the air and wave them
like you just don't care. If you "Fly" you automatically do the "Shake".
From 1959 to this moment it's either the "Twist", the "Pony", the
"Fly", the "Shake" or some other nasty stuff in between.
Please I urge you not to look upon my comments as self-centered, proud
love thy self. This is not what this is about. Since I have such a
unique situation in the music business, I feel only I can explain it. If
the music industry knew or understood this reoccurring phenomenon,
that's renewed every time the beat begins, they would have explained it
through the decades. Yes, "Dancing Apart to the Beat" is Chubby Checker.
Everybody is doing it everyday, every month, every year, since its
discovery in 1959. Chubby Checker's given the music business something
great. Now he wants his greatness returned.
I want my flowers while I'm alive. I can't smell them when I'm dead. The
people that come to see the show have given me everything. However I
will not have the music business ignorant of my position in the
industry. Dick Clark said, and I quote, "The three most important things
that ever happened in the music industry are Elvis Presley, the Beatles
and Chubby Checker". Now I ask you. Where is my more money and my more
fame? God bless and have mercy. You know I Love You.
Yours truly,
Chubby Checker
Brett A. Pasternack
> T P Uschanov <tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>>The Hollies don't have any songs with the lasting cultural
>>>penetration of, say, "Good Lovin'," "Groovin'" and "A Beautiful
>>>Morning."
>>
>>That's a very parochial view of things. In many parts of the
>>world, including practically the entirety of Europe, the Rascals
>>are simply nonentities compared to the Hollies. In Britain, for
>>instance, they only ever had two hits, of which only one was a
>>major one: "Groovin'" made it to #8 and "A Girl Like You" to #37.
>>Whereas the Hollies have had eighteen Top 10 hits, of which
>>thirteen were Top 5 hits.
>
>
Only in part. The larger point is that The Hollies were bigger in many
parts of the world.
>
>>On last.fm, which compiles charts of tracks registered users
>>worldwide play on their computers, there are 2,908 listeners for
>>the Rascals (combining both versions of their name), while the
>>Hollies have had 11,087 listeners. The three songs you mention
>>have had 910, 733 and 433 listeners, while the Hollies' three
>>most popular songs have had 2,013, 1,964 and 1,734 listeners.
>>
>>http://www.last.fm/music/The+Hollies/+charts
>>http://www.last.fm/music/The+Rascals/+charts
>>http://www.last.fm/music/The+Young+Rascals/+charts
>
>
> A decent argument, but I don't know enough about last.fm's
> demographic to know whether I should grant its contents any
> weight. And the fact remains...the Rascals are in the HOF, and the
> Hollies aren't. So, why do you think that is? Give a reason which
> doesn't involve saying "The committee is just stupid, man!!"
Several reasons. One is, indeed, that Atlantic Records artists tend to
benefit from the committee's familiarity with them. Of course you're
right that Aretha and Zep would get in anyway, but I have two words for
you: Percy Sledge.
Another is, there's an unfortunately stigma on plain old pop/rock music
from the "classic rock" era. I don't think there's any question that pop
acts from the mid-to-late 60s are underrepresented in the Hall. Not only
have the Hollies been passed over, but also others such as Tommy James
and the Dave Clark 5.
Thirdly, the Hall is, as Mark alluded to, a bit parochial. Success in
Europe isn't as important to the voters as success in the US. In
addition to the British Invasion groups, UK prog is underrepresented,
and I'm NOT a prog fan. You'd think at least one of Genesis, the Moody
Blues or Yes would be in by now. Queen is huge in the UK, but they
aren't in either.
Finally, sometimes they just make mistakes. Why isn't the Rock And Roll
Trio in? I can't give you a good reason for that, but they belong more
than some of the inducted acts, don't they?
Note that I'm not saying that the Rascals shouldn't be in. I think they
should; I just think The Hollies should, too.
Mark Dintenfass
Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass wrote:
> >
> > It's not that unthinkable. "The Twist" was a significant cultural
> > phenomenon in the early 60s and Checker was the embodiment of the
> > thing.
>
> It's somewhat unthinkable after his full-page ad in Billboard where he
> said that he really deserves the Nobel Prize, and that if they do elect
> them into the Hall, they should erect a statue of him in a separate part
> of the Hall (on a thirty foot pedestal!) so he wouldn't be lumped in
> with all of the others. If it weren't for that, he might have gotten in
> by now.
>
> The rant is hilarious, and entertainingly ungrammatical:
I had heard about it, but not actually read it before. It is everything
you say. But, still, the man has a point. After "The Twist," dancing
would never be the same again.
Thanks for the post, Brett.
Bob Roman
>So silly. Perfectly valid points.
Then why do you hide behind name-calling instead of debating their
merits?
--
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
>Bob Roman wrote:
>> Then why do you hide behind name-calling instead of debating their
>> merits?
>
>Aha. You know the argument is winding down when the legendary Mee
>Too Warrior steps in to take a shot.
So silly. Perfectly valid point.
--
Bob Roman
the Other Jeff
> Is Spinal Tap are based on Black Sabbath. For example the Stonehenge
> stage set idea in the film was taken from a real stage used by Black
> Sabbath for their Born Again Tour.
I don't remember it looking like Stonehenge, but I did see this tour and the
set was a sort of rocky projection with caves in it. The band members wore
hooded robes, like monks, and slowly emerged, each from their own cave. The
hoods hid their faces and they had lights for eyes, sort of like the baddies
in Omega Man (Chas. Heston movie).
Another set of props that left an impression on this (at the time) very
stoned & chemically altered 19 year old were the crosses hanging from the
ceiling. There were several smaller ones, made of cross shaped rows of very
very bright high beams headlights. During a critical point of the show, a
humongus one folded down from the ceiling and fired up. WOW! You had to
turn away due to the light and heat generated by this thing. It felt like
God was in the house. I wondered at the time whether he would smote us.
Quiet Riot was the opening act. It was right before they hit it big. I had
scored a copy of their debut a couple months before the show, so I was
familiar with all of the songs, making it a great warm-up for the main
event. Sabbath were awesome (possibly the drugs helped that option) and the
suspension of reality was only broken for a short while when Ian Gillian
tripped and fell down on the stage. I'll admit that I didn't know who the
singer was for that tour at the time. I hadn't yet got the Born Again
album, and my seats weren't good enough for recognition. Heck I didn't even
recognize the voice even though I was both a Deep Purple and Jesus Christ
Superstar fan. I started to piece it together when they did Smoke On The
Water as an encore.
I miss concerts that include a good dose (no pun intended) of theatrics. I
can appreciate a group of talented musicians on a bare stage making music,
but for my entertainment dollar I often prefer a SHOW. Even if I need to
sacrifice talent for showmanship (think KISS). The closest thing I've seen
in recent years (besides Kiss ruinous & farewells) was Rob Zombie on the
Hellbelly Deluxe tour. He gave us something to look at, and I like that.
Todd Lucas
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
> > Chart talk.
>
> Only in part. The larger point is that The Hollies were bigger in many
> parts of the world.
Not to mention the fact that the Hollies were plenty big enough and
remain big enough in the U.S. to warrant inclusion, Mike's relative
lack of current awareness notwithstanding. They were among the ten
most important bands of the British Invasion, which says plenty in my
book, considering how important that period was to the last 40 years of
rock and roll.
Todd
Intheway
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
> Finally, sometimes they just make mistakes. Why isn't the Rock And Roll
> Trio in? I can't give you a good reason for that, but they belong more
> than some of the inducted acts, don't they?
They don't have any constituency on the nominating committee, or, to be
more exact, not enough of one. From conversations I have had over the
years with members of the committee, I think that all the acts that
have been named in this thread as worthy of induction have been
discussed within the committee at one point or another, but have failed
to gain any measure of popular support, despite some pretty passionate
advocacy.
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> Well, I only count six strict "British Invasion" bands in the Hall
> already (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, Yardbirds, Animals), so I
> guess you believe three other bands are just as overlooked as the
> Hollies.
Not if they're #7.
>
> I just think it's wonderful that everyone's tastes are so
> absolutely righteous that they know the only reason the Hollies
> can be left out is because the nominating committee is biased or
> ignorant.
I never said anything like that.
Todd
Todd Lucas
I think what's dumb is that the voting process isn't more open, instead
of just getting the 15 or so hand-picked choices that the nominating
committee presents each year. The committee is much more responsible
for who gets inducted than the voters are. I remember reading once
that over 80% of the nominated acts have eventually been inducted
because the committee tends to re-nominate ad nauseum until an act
receives enough votes for induction. Black Sabbath is a good example
from this year. How many times have they been on the ballot, while
someone like The Ventures have never even been an option.
Todd
Brett A. Pasternack
> already (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, Yardbirds, Animals), so I
> guess you believe three other bands are just as overlooked as the
> Hollies.
Ten wasn't my number, but if we take "bands" to include solo artists,
then Dusty Springfield is in. I'd argue for the Dave Clark Five as well
as the Hollies. Figure maybe The Zombies are #10 on that list and don't
quite make it in.
> I just think it's wonderful that everyone's tastes are so
> absolutely righteous that they know the only reason the Hollies
> can be left out is because the nominating committee is biased or
> ignorant.
Don't be disingenuous. We disagree with them, and you asked for possible
reasons why they wouldn't have voted that way, so we offered them. Are
you saying you don't disagree with ANY of the Hall's decisions?
Brett A. Pasternack
>>>absolutely righteous that they know the only reason the Hollies
>>>can be left out is because the nominating committee is biased or
>>>ignorant.
>>
>>Don't be disingenuous. We disagree with them, and you asked for possible
>>reasons why they wouldn't have voted that way, so we offered them.
>
>
> any blame on the Hollies themselves.
"Blame"? If you mean that we don't say they don't deserve it, well,
that's a given when we disagree with the Hall's decision.
If you mean that they haven't done the necessary politicking or
whatever, then that's a criticism of the committee; politicking
shouldn't be part of the process, or at least should have an effect on them.
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> I'd really like to see Patti Smith get in. She still hasn't made
> it. Am I resentful about this? No. The Hall's aesthetic just leans
> a different way than mine.
>
But Patti Smith has been nominated at least twice. She'll probably
continue to remain on the ballot until she's inducted, if the hall's
past practices are any indication. The Hollies have never been
nominated. The Ventures have never been nominated. My argument is
that the voters should have the option of voting for any one of these,
if they choose.
Todd
Brett A. Pasternack
> "Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>It's not disingenuous to note that none of the reasons given put
>>>any blame on the Hollies themselves.
>>
>>"Blame"? If you mean that we don't say they don't deserve it, well,
>>that's a given when we disagree with the Hall's decision.
>
>
> "wrong."
I don't recall using that word, and I can't find it in the thread. I
said that I disagree, and I said that I would argue for them.
> There's still not the smallest acknowledgement that the
> Hall could have a different point of view which is credible. No,
I didn't say that, either. You asked me why I thought they had not
nominated the Hollies, when I think they belong in there, so I gave
reasons why they wouldn't have, even if my case is a good one.
> it's all about being "parochial," biased, self-serving, etc. And I
> guess you still won't develop any doubts about your righteousness,
> even as more years pass without the Hollies being inducted.
Well, no, I'mnot going to change my mind simply because they haven't
nominated them. Now, if someone on the committee (or anyone, really),
wants to explain their reasoning, I'm happy to listen, and it's always
possible that might change my mind.
> I'd really like to see Patti Smith get in. She still hasn't made
> it. Am I resentful about this? No. The Hall's aesthetic just leans
> a different way than mine. Not a *worse* way, just a different
> way. That's life.
Well, yes. Did you get the idea that I was, like, depressed over this,
or something? When the topic of who should be in the Hall comes up, I
argue for The Hollies. Just as someone else argued for the Rock And Roll
Trio, and I thought they were right. That's all.
> A week or two ago, I posted a list of 20 artists from my
> collection which I judged most likely to be inducted. I didn't get
> impudent and declare "THESE BANDS SHOULD GET IN, OR THE HALL
> COMMITTEE IS PAROCHIAL AND IGNORANT!"
Neither did I. You're reading things in that aren't there.
In other cases, I've defended the Hall voters. Some people have a big
problem with Billy Joel and/or James Taylor being in; I support the Hall
on that when the topic comes up. The vast majority of the people in the
Hall, I have no problem with. Indeed, I've said here that I don't
personally care for Sabbath or Skynyrd, but I think the Hall was right
to put them in. It just happens that there are a few cases where I
disagree with them, and in those cases I think there are factors which
caused them to vote a certain way. That's all.
What you said about Patti Smith is really no different from what I said
about the Hollies. Their aesthetic leans a certain way; I just happen to
think that they should be open to other kinds of aesthetics, just as I'd
vote for Sabbath even though they don't fit MY aesthetic.
> Relax.
I might say the same.