R & R Hall of Fame Ballot
wro...@temple.edu
and uninvited comments.
John Mellencamp--deargodpleaseno! If Mellencamp gets in, does that
open the doors for other cover bands?
Blondie--interesting question--it's like asking how many high impact
seasons a ball player needs to get into his sport's hall of fame. High
peak, important for mixing genres, but were they influential enough to
overcome a short career at the top?
Cat Stevens--no on talent, no on impact <rant about being the happy
face for less than shiny, happy people deleted>
Patti Smith Group--YES, due to impact and long-term influence
Sex Pistols--YES, but maybe not on the first ballot (assuming this is
their first time on the ballot)
the Stooges--Maybe, influential on other artists, lack direct impact on
the listening public
Lynyrd Skynyrd--high peak value and tragedy would suggest yes, but how
well their music has worn might suggest no (I was in to southern rock
for about a year back in the 70s--until I thought about what it meant
for a bunch of white boys to be standing in front of the stars n' bars
singing about how the south was goina do it again)
Black Sabbath--if influence is important to the voters, then, Yes,
they're in
Dave Clark Five--I'm leaning towards no
J Geils Band--again with the baseball analogy, but just like a player
can have an impressive career that still falls short of the hall of
fame, so too can a band. Good, solid professionals, catchy tunes, but
does that a R n R Hall of Fame band make? No
Miles Davis / Grand Master Flash & the Furious Five--in a POPULAR music
hall of fame, certainly. I can see the logic of their inclusion in the
R n R Hall of Fame. I think how voters deal with them will tell us a
lot about the future of R n R Hall of Fame membership. I'm guessing
no. And I'm guessing if only one of the two gets in, it would be Miles
Davis for his influence on 70s jazz-fusion (a genre I truly miss and
that is conspicuously absent on most classic rock play lists, despite
the hugh mid70s presence of Jeff Beck)
Wes
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> wro...@temple.edu wrote:
>
> > Sex Pistols--YES, but maybe not on the first ballot (assuming this is
> > their first time on the ballot)
>
> Wenner strives to keep them out.
Who is Jan Wenner?
>
No chance for the > Dave Clark Five, J. Geils, Chic or Paul
Butterfield.
I predict at least one of these gets in, and I hope that you're wrong
about the DC5. The hall of fame needs to recognize the eras and context
that these artists came from and lighten up some on the anti-Top 40
slant. They certainly belong in there before already inducted acts like
Gene Pitney, Del Shannon and Ritchie Valens.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
wro...@temple.edu wrote:
> This years ballot, in no particular order, along for my ill-informed
> and uninvited comments.
>
> John Mellencamp--deargodpleaseno! If Mellencamp gets in, does that
> open the doors for other cover bands?
L.I. - Some great moments...The Lonesome Jubilee album...and especially
that track Peaceful World from Cuttin' Heads...I won't carp if he goes
in, probably more talent than Grateful Dead combined.
>
> Blondie--interesting question--it's like asking how many high impact
> seasons a ball player needs to get into his sport's hall of fame. High
> peak, important for mixing genres, but were they influential enough to
> overcome a short career at the top?
L.I.-A career at the top means nothing in terms of important and
indispensable music...look at the Monkees...for God's sake, look at the
Archies...LOOK AT DISCO in general!!! No Exile On Main Street, No
London Calling, no Horses, no Marquee Moon in their catalogue anywhere
that I can see. Is any of albums worth a hair on the ass of Blood On
The Tracks? But Debbie Harry was very pretty and very sexually
charismatic and alluring...that much I'll give them. Did they have a
celebrated guitarist like a Nils Lofgren or Sonny Landreth is their
outfit who other artists drooled to have sit in their sessions?
>
> Cat Stevens--no on talent, no on impact <rant about being the happy
> face for less than shiny, happy people deleted>
L.I. - "Tea For The Tillerman" was his one great album worth 5
stars..the follow-up was merely okay. But TFTT made people sit up and
take notice, although the potential was seen in Mona Bona Jakon,
earlier than that. But boy, he spent his load quickly didn't he? An
ashen, shrunken, dried out talent within two years after TFTT with
nothing to offer. Similar story, somewhat for Dave Mason.
>
> Patti Smith Group--YES, due to impact and long-term influence
L.I. - Fine
>
> Sex Pistols--YES, but maybe not on the first ballot (assuming this is
> their first time on the ballot)
L.I. - Best thing since sliced bread? I don't think so...
>
> the Stooges--Maybe, influential on other artists, lack direct impact on
> the listening public
L.I. - Never my type.
>
> Lynyrd Skynyrd--high peak value and tragedy would suggest yes, but how
> well their music has worn might suggest no (I was in to southern rock
> for about a year back in the 70s--until I thought about what it meant
> for a bunch of white boys to be standing in front of the stars n' bars
> singing about how the south was goina do it again)
L.I. - On quality of offerings, and rocking and boogie-ing hard, and
being true to rock and roll's rebellious spirit, and some great songs,
yes.
>
> Black Sabbath--if influence is important to the voters, then, Yes,
> they're in
L.I. - Don't need them. I think they would cheapen or water-down Hall
of Fame...no Jimi Hendrix Experience. No Led Zeppelin, either. Not
cut from that finer kind of material, in a manner of speaking.
>
> Dave Clark Five--I'm leaning towards no
L.I. - The only other British invasion band/group during the first 6
months' of Beatlemania that rocked. No strong objection. Kind of
essential in a way, but not in Stones or Kinks class for songcraft. If
they had been playing bars in America back then, they could've been, in
theoretical kind of way, voted best bar band of their era. Best bar
band of all time, that would never go beyond bar band quality. Could
really rouse some energy...significant remakes of Do You Love Me and
You Got What It Takes for example. Best of a bunch of bands down
through the years in that era which might include Grass Roots, Rare
Earth, etc...my vote for best band to rock the tavern
>
> J Geils Band--again with the baseball analogy, but just like a player
> can have an impressive career that still falls short of the hall of
> fame, so too can a band. Good, solid professionals, catchy tunes, but
> does that a R n R Hall of Fame band make? No
I wouldn't mind if they got in. I mean, if Blondie-level quality would
get in, J Geils are just as important. - L.I.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Jerry Butler - solo (my biggest disappointment) His omission is just
as bad as if they werer never to put Stevie Ray Vaughn (which they
undoubtedly will when he becomes eligible, but...). His great virile
soul voice on so many 60's and early 70's records indispensable to
radio soundtrack of those times. Who wants to argue they he wasn't
among top 10 greatest Soul men (solo performers) of all time?
Peter Gabriel - solo ("So" album, "Games Without Frontiers", "Solsberry
Hill", "Shock The Monkey", Sledgehammer, "Don't Give Up", startlingly
innovative and original contributor to late 70's/early 80's music
scene.)
What the fuck is wrong with Jan Wenner (publisher of Rolling Stone
mag/rag) and Seymour Stein (president of Sire Records) who run this
show?
Bad taste, short memories, or general out of touch or all three? Oh,
well
Billy Joel's in...he's more important than Peter Gabriel, right?
Carole King - singer-songwriter solo artist (some great 70's music)
Mitch Ryder & Detroit Wheels (Devil With A Blue Dress, and Jenny Take a
Ride medleys, etc.)
Kate and Anna McGarrigle
Always will be disappointed the following not nominated:
Laura Nyro
The Clovers
The Chantels (the first female supergroup, and much more than "Maybe"
Fairport Convention - 60's vintage
Not insignificantly disappointed for other people who should be in,
like:
Clifton Chenier
Richard & Linda Thompson
Warren Zevon
Dionne Warwick - very essential of 1960's soul-pop scene. Aren't you
glad she was on the radio and high on the charts with heavy rotation
practically every season of the 60's. Hey, if Dusty Springfield
deserves to be in, Dionne Warwick is JUST as deserving, and don't try
to argue me about that point...
The Spinners
Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes featuring Theodore Pendergrass
(1970-1975)
The Crickets - Buddy Holly's group
And other worthies, like:
The Harptones
The Delfonics
Wynonie Harris
Tom Waits
Little Feat
Ry Cooder
Doug Sahm
The Dubs
The 5 Satins
A couple artists that mean/meant more to me than Blondie include:
Mary Wells
The Cars
Is/was Blondie more important to you than the Cars? C'mon! Were
Blondie half as important as Little Feat? Roxy Music? Blondie were
kind of faddish like Chubby Checker was in his time, but I can't see
them being more important musically. The Twist was more important
culturally than they were. Blondie's contributions to rock music and
pop music PALE in comparison to what Ry Cooder has brought to the table
over more than a generation.
Any year or two of nominations like these, and my feelings about the
R&RHOF will take an about turn in Roger Ford's direction.
- Larry Ingersoll
Todd Lucas
> > their first time on the ballot)
>
> Wenner strives to keep them out.
I don't object to their induction but what's with this repeated
nomination stuff? Several of the other artists on this year's ballot
have been nominated multiple times too. I once read that something
like 83% of all nominees eventually get inducted. Keep nominating
someone for long enough and they're bound to make it.
>
> I don't follow Hall of Fame news enough to know how many are
> inducted in a year (five, six, seven?), but I'd say Lynyrd Skynyrd
> is the frontrunner.
They've been on the ballot before also. One thing in their favor this
year is that there are no real slam dunk nominees. Otherwise, this
year's ballot isn't really much weaker than in years past.
>Perhaps Blondie is in second place, unless
> Ozzy's recent resurgence lifts Black Sabbath.
Sabbath has been on the ballot for what, the last five years straight?
His resurgence hasn't helped much so far.
>No chance for the
> Dave Clark Five, J. Geils, Chic or Paul Butterfield.
I wouldn't say no chance. The Lovin' Spoonful surprised a lot of
people with their induction a few years back and I believe it was their
first ballot. I agree with Bruce's synopsis regarding bands like the
DC5, although I don't think they're the right band to induct.
Personally, I think they stunk most of the time. I'd much rather see
someone like PR&R get inducted.
>With
> Grandmaster Flash and Miles Davis, it's just a question of
> classification boundaries.
For some voters it will be.
Cat Stevens may be snubbed for
> political reasons, and because he's likely to skip the dinner
And maybe even because he wasn't that good.
> (and, of course, this Hall of Fame might not even exist if it
> didn't have a special dinner to stroke the egos of its elite
> attendees). Otherwise, I don't know how "counterculture" this game
> is willing to go, as far as the Sex Pistols, Stooges and Patti
> Smith.
True, although it looks fairly good for at least one of them to make it
this year.
>Smith and the Sex Pistols seem essential to me, but this is
> Rolling Stone's baby, not Spin's. Mellencamp is a complete
> mediocrity, but this isn't necessarily a handicap here.
I'd vote for The Stooges before the other two, although I'd probably
vote for all three, given this ballot. I'm from Indiana and have been
Mellenkamped to death for years. I completely agree with your analysis
of him.
Todd
Todd Lucas
yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Doug Sahm
Good call here. He's probably more worthy than Butterfield and
certinly moreso than someone like Gram Parsons.
Todd
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Thanks for the support, but to add: they're all good calls. I could
do a better job than Jan Wenner or Seymour Stein. Put me on the
committee - IF ONLY to avoid the coming debacles...I say this at more
than 50% serious, too.
JGM
wro...@temple.edu wrote:
> This years ballot, in no particular order, along for my ill-informed
> and uninvited comments.
>
> John Mellencamp--deargodpleaseno! If Mellencamp gets in, does that
> open the doors for other cover bands?
Not sure exactly what you mean here. I've never been clear on the
exact concept behind the nomination process: I know that an artist
becomes eligible 25 years after his first released recording, but is
the idea that once an artist is eligible, that the entire career of
that artists should be taken into account, or if the early recordings
are lame or insignificant, is the intent to wait for the anniversary
of later, more sigificant recordings? I mean, I agree that the early
Cougar/Mellencamp albums are pretty weak, but the man deserves eventual
entry, on the strength of "Jack and Diane" and the Lonesome Jubilee
album, and his work with Farm Aid if nothing else.
> Blondie--interesting question--it's like asking how many high impact
> seasons a ball player needs to get into his sport's hall of fame. High
> peak, important for mixing genres, but were they influential enough to
> overcome a short career at the top?
Don't know how you can not have them; the iconic New Wave act.
> Patti Smith Group--YES, due to impact and long-term influence
How can you say this and argue that Blondie is borderline because of a
"short career at the top". Smith was influential, but had a marginal
career at best and *no* time at the top of anything.
> Sex Pistols--YES, but maybe not on the first ballot (assuming this is
> their first time on the ballot)
See my comments above -- if the idea is to recognize at the time of
the meaningful relase, they've gotta be in right away early or never.
If the idea is to recognize overall accomplishment, then I don't get
the whole idea of "not on the first ballot" -- is this supposed to be a
way to create a first- and second-tier within the HOF? Savoy, is there
a parallel to the MLB HOF here?
> the Stooges--Maybe, influential on other artists, lack direct impact on
> the listening public
Same category as Smith, but less so. I'd say you need both impact and
popular success.
> Lynyrd Skynyrd--high peak value and tragedy would suggest yes, but how
> well their music has worn might suggest no
Every Classic Rock program director in the country might disagree on
how well their music has worn. Still a hugely over-rated band; if
Mellencamp had succumbed to one of his heart attacks he'd be twice the
shoo-in these guys are.
> J Geils Band--again with the baseball analogy, but just like a player
> can have an impressive career that still falls short of the hall of
> fame, so too can a band. Good, solid professionals, catchy tunes, but
> does that a R n R Hall of Fame band make? No
Agreed here, a b-list band without much influence despite their solid
string of great records.
> Miles Davis / Grand Master Flash & the Furious Five--in a POPULAR music
> hall of fame, certainly. I can see the logic of their inclusion in the
> R n R Hall of Fame. I think how voters deal with them will tell us a
> lot about the future of R n R Hall of Fame membership. I'm guessing
> no. And I'm guessing if only one of the two gets in, it would be Miles
> Davis for his influence on 70s jazz-fusion (a genre I truly miss and
> that is conspicuously absent on most classic rock play lists, despite
> the hugh mid70s presence of Jeff Beck)
Disagree here: Miles was a great and influential artist but has no
place in a Rock and Roll hall. The issue with Grandmaster Flash will
be whether the HOF establishment intends to give rap and hip hop a
place as the years go on. If the eventual HOF will include such acts,
GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
JGM
Sav...@aol.com
yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Enormously disappointed the very deserving following weren't nominated:
>
Why the Harptones?
They never even had a national hit record (pop or R & B) until
squeaking on to the pop chart with "What Will I Tell My Heart" in 1961.
They made some excellent ballads, but rock and roll hall of
fame...that's preposterous. Just not anywhere near well known enough on
a national basis, let alone a worldwide basis. They're already in the
UGHA doo-wop hall of fame, that's good enough for them.
> Wynonie Harris
The most glaring omission among pioneer artists for sure.
> The Dubs
> The 5 Satins
Please stop with these doo-wop groups that made 2 or 3 good records.
They don't belong in any rock and roll hasll of fame.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Who is Jan Wenner?
>
> I assume this is a spelling flame, rather than a genuine display
> of ignorance.
No, I have no idea who he (or she) is.
>
> > No chance for the > Dave Clark Five, J. Geils, Chic or Paul
> > Butterfield.
> >
> > I predict at least one of these gets in, and I hope that you're wrong
> > about the DC5. The hall of fame needs to recognize the eras and context
> > that these artists came from and lighten up some on the anti-Top 40
> > slant.
>
> Veering back to Topic #3, I see. Well, even the band's
> contributions to the Top 40 world don't seem particularly
> distinguished to me.
Like someone else said, the only hard rocking British group other than
the Beatles in the first half of 1964, they were vying with the Fab
Four at times for the most popular English group with American
teenagers in the spring of 1964. Certainly the top "bar band" type
group from the UK in the 60s.
Particularly, when compared with the other
> acts who still aren't included.
What top 40 acts from the Dave Clark 5's era, who aren't in yet, do you
see as more deserving?
Do you at least agree that they belong before Gene Piney, who is
already in?
Sav...@aol.com
JGM wrote:
> wro...@temple.edu wrote:
> > Blondie--interesting question--it's like asking how many high impact
> > seasons a ball player needs to get into his sport's hall of fame. High
> > peak, important for mixing genres, but were they influential enough to
> > overcome a short career at the top?
>
> Don't know how you can not have them; the iconic New Wave act.
>
> > Patti Smith Group--YES, due to impact and long-term influence
>
> How can you say this and argue that Blondie is borderline because of a
> "short career at the top". Smith was influential, but had a marginal
> career at best and *no* time at the top of anything.
>
> > Sex Pistols--YES, but maybe not on the first ballot (assuming this is
> > their first time on the ballot)
>
> See my comments above -- if the idea is to recognize at the time of
> the meaningful relase, they've gotta be in right away early or never.
> If the idea is to recognize overall accomplishment, then I don't get
> the whole idea of "not on the first ballot" -- is this supposed to be a
> way to create a first- and second-tier within the HOF? Savoy, is there
> a parallel to the MLB HOF here?
Can't really be done because the MLB Hall Of Fame does not have to take
into account intangibles like influence.
Every baseball player has the same goal, to score runs while your team
is batting and to prevent the other team from scoring while you are in
the field, so a baseball player's accomplishments are much easier to
measure and evaluate.
If the R & R hall of fame was solely based on which artists were the
most successful, things would be different, but it's not. Certain
things (critically acclaimed albums, influence) have been deemed by
their voters as more important than certain other things (hit singles).
In MLB there are lots of hall of famers who take several years to be
elected. The writers who vote are mostly a bunch of monkeys who want to
see what their peers think before they'll vote for somebody. Many
candidates have started out with only 50% (or less) of the vote and
worked their way up to the 75% of the vote that's required for
enshrinement. Many writers will never vote for anybody on the first
ballot, other than the top tier guys like Mays, Aaron and Seaver.
If the eventual HOF will include such acts,
> GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
Let's not get crazy here. GMF is not even known to most of the gerneral
public of their day. They may deserve to go in, but they are nowhere
near as important as Fats Domino.
Perhaps RUN-DMC might be on a par with fats, but not Flash. A better
comp for Flash might be the Five Royales.
DianeE
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127357187.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The Dubs
> > The 5 Satins
>
> Please stop with these doo-wop groups that made 2 or 3 good records.
> They don't belong in any rock and roll hasll of fame.
I don't think The Dubs belong in any rock and roll hall of fame either, but
they made more than 3 good records. They made 6 that I can think of right
now:
Could This Be Magic
Chapel of Dreams
Don't Ask Me To Be Lonely
Beside My Love
Be Sure My Love
Is There A Love For Me
DianeE
DianeE
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127358303....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JGM wrote:
>
> If the eventual HOF will include such [rap/hip-hop] acts,
> > GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
>
> Let's not get crazy here. GMF is not even known to most of the gerneral
> public of their day. They may deserve to go in, but they are nowhere
> near as important as Fats Domino.
-----------
I agree that they are not as important (or prolific) as Fats Domino, but I
disagree that they were not known to most of the general public of their
day. "The Message" with its "protest" lyrics had great appeal to white
ex-hippies like myself. Probably the first rap record that piqued the
interest of people who were well out of their teens and didn't go to discos.
I even remember seeing a now-forgotten cast member of Saturday Night Live,
Tim Kazurinsky, dressed as a middle-class nerd, recite the refrain "It's
like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from going under."
(In fact, that's probably the only reason I remember Tim Kazurinsky, because
he recited that line!) In the "Me Decade" you didn't have to live in the
ghetto to have that line resonate with you.
DianeE
Intheway
Mike G wrote:
>
> I don't follow Hall of Fame news enough to know how many are
> inducted in a year (five, six, seven?), but I'd say Lynyrd Skynyrd
> Ozzy's recent resurgence lifts Black Sabbath. No chance for the
> Dave Clark Five, J. Geils, Chic or Paul Butterfield. With
> Grandmaster Flash and Miles Davis, it's just a question of
> political reasons, and because he's likely to skip the dinner
> didn't have a special dinner to stroke the egos of its elite
> attendees). Otherwise, I don't know how "counterculture" this game
> is willing to go, as far as the Sex Pistols, Stooges and Patti
> Rolling Stone's baby, not Spin's. Mellencamp is a complete
> mediocrity, but this isn't necessarily a handicap here.
>From what I have heard from friends who are voters, this is generally
considered a strong field; no out and out slam dunks, but where you can
go five deep (the most likely number, it's actually up to the HoF to
decide where the cut off is) without major embarrassment to most
people.
Please remember who Joe Tex recorded for. He's a shoo in.
Skynyrd is considered very strong, so is Blondie, Grandmaster Flash,
and Mellencamp. I don't think Mellencamp belongs on the basis of one
excellent album and a long career of benign mediocrity, but one total
irrelevant factor must be cited in his favor; the best damned live band
this side of E Street. My guess is he'll probably make it, as will the
others already mentioned.
If they go to six (not likely), I'd love to see Sahm or Butterfield,
but it is more likely to be DC5 or Chic.
Interestingly, there is some sentiment regarding Cat Stevens that he
will NOT be snubbed because of politics, but that he will actually draw
an anti-government sympathy vote (which is really why he got through
the Nomination Committee and on the ballot in the first place). He
won't make it this year, and you will probably never see him on the
ballot again.
Fred
DianeE
"Intheway" <fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127363809.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Please remember who Joe Tex recorded for. He's a shoo in.
>
<snip>
>
> Interestingly, there is some sentiment regarding Cat Stevens that he
> will NOT be snubbed because of politics, but that he will actually draw
> an anti-government sympathy vote (which is really why he got through
> the Nomination Committee and on the ballot in the first place). He
> won't make it this year, and you will probably never see him on the
> ballot again.
---------
Well, I hope you're right about that. Nevertheless I find it ironic that
the "shoo in" was also a well-known convert to Islam. Fortunately for his
reputation, he died long before anyone had ever heard of Al Qaeda.
DianeE
Sav...@aol.com
DianeE wrote:
> <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1127358303....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > JGM wrote:
>
> >
> > If the eventual HOF will include such [rap/hip-hop] acts,
> > > GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
> >
> > Let's not get crazy here. GMF is not even known to most of the gerneral
> > public of their day. They may deserve to go in, but they are nowhere
> > near as important as Fats Domino.
> -----------
> I agree that they are not as important (or prolific) as Fats Domino, but I
> disagree that they were not known to most of the general public of their
> day.
Thsi from somebody who never heard of U-2.
"The Message" with its "protest" lyrics had great appeal to white
> ex-hippies like myself. Probably the first rap record that piqued the
> interest of people who were well out of their teens and didn't go to discos.
> I even remember seeing a now-forgotten cast member of Saturday Night Live,
> Tim Kazurinsky, dressed as a middle-class nerd, recite the refrain "It's
> like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from going under."
> (In fact, that's probably the only reason I remember Tim Kazurinsky, because
> he recited that line!) In the "Me Decade" you didn't have to live in the
> ghetto to have that line resonate with you.
"The Message" peaked at # 62 on the Billboard pop singles chart, and
the group never had a bigger hit than that. Their biggest albumn did
not crack the top 50 on the album chart. They just were not known to
most of the general public, and that's the way it was. Sure the record
was much bigger in the part of the world where you reside (New York
City), but nobody ever heard of the group in many parts of the U.S. and
of the world.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
>
> Please remember who Joe Tex recorded for. He's a shoo in.
Why, is Dial represented on the panel?
Tex didn't actually record for Atlantic, did he?
He recorded for a label that was distributed by Atlantic, as did Sam &
Dave.
Brett A. Pasternack
> This years ballot, in no particular order, along for my ill-informed
> and uninvited comments.
>
> John Mellencamp--deargodpleaseno! If Mellencamp gets in, does that
> open the doors for other cover bands?
Huh? I wouldn't vote for him, I think he's very overrated, but I don't
get what you mean about cover bands at all.
> Blondie--interesting question--it's like asking how many high impact
> seasons a ball player needs to get into his sport's hall of fame. High
> peak, important for mixing genres, but were they influential enough to
> overcome a short career at the top?
Very interesting question. Close call.
> Cat Stevens--no on talent, no on impact <rant about being the happy
> face for less than shiny, happy people deleted>
Good songwriter, not much impact beyond that. Borderline. I like him,
but I can understand if he doesn't get in.
> Patti Smith Group--YES, due to impact and long-term influence
Tough call also. Not a huge catalog, not much commercial success, but
certainly notable impact and influence.
> Sex Pistols--YES, but maybe not on the first ballot (assuming this is
> their first time on the ballot)
Their fifth time, actually. I would say no, though--their impact was
huge, but to me the body of work is just to small. (Then again, Buffalo
Springfield and Richie Valens are in.)
> the Stooges--Maybe, influential on other artists, lack direct impact on
> the listening public
I agree.
> Lynyrd Skynyrd--high peak value and tragedy would suggest yes, but how
> well their music has worn might suggest no (I was in to southern rock
> for about a year back in the 70s--until I thought about what it meant
> for a bunch of white boys to be standing in front of the stars n' bars
> singing about how the south was goina do it again)
Not my thing, but I can see the case for them.
> Black Sabbath--if influence is important to the voters, then, Yes,
> they're in
Also not my thing, but it's hard to deny their importance.
> Dave Clark Five--I'm leaning towards no
I would LOVE to see them get in. They put out a bunch of great records.
Basically, when the list comes out, I'll be happy if they're on it, and
I won't be if they're not.
I'd rather it be the Hollies, but the DC5 would be nice.
> J Geils Band--again with the baseball analogy, but just like a player
> can have an impressive career that still falls short of the hall of
> fame, so too can a band. Good, solid professionals, catchy tunes, but
> does that a R n R Hall of Fame band make? No
I agree. They were solid, but not special. Compared with the DC5, for
example, fewer hits, fewer memorable songs, less original.
> Miles Davis / Grand Master Flash & the Furious Five--in a POPULAR music
> hall of fame, certainly. I can see the logic of their inclusion in the
> R n R Hall of Fame. I think how voters deal with them will tell us a
> lot about the future of R n R Hall of Fame membership. I'm guessing
> no. And I'm guessing if only one of the two gets in, it would be Miles
> Davis for his influence on 70s jazz-fusion (a genre I truly miss and
> that is conspicuously absent on most classic rock play lists, despite
> the hugh mid70s presence of Jeff Beck)
Davis is a tough call, as he represents a genre that's distinctly
outside of the field of rock and roll, and yet he's a huge artist. I'd
like the see the Furious Five get in, but, regardless, there are bigger
rap artists such as Run-DMC who should, and will, get in.
You seem to have omitted:
Chic--Well, they were certainly influential in their field. I can see
the case. Again, not my thing. Perhaps better to induct Nile Rogers as a
non-performer. (Have the non-performer nominees been announced?)
Joe Tex--An important soul artist, and an influence on rap, but someone
mentioned Jerry Butler and I would say Butler's more deserving. (Than
again, they're both more deserving than Percy Sledge.)
Sir Douglas Quintet--I like them, but, no, I really can't see it.
Certainly not compared to the likes of the DC5, The Hollies, or Tommy James.
Sav...@aol.com
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
> > J Geils Band--again with the baseball analogy, but just like a player
> > can have an impressive career that still falls short of the hall of
> > fame, so too can a band. Good, solid professionals, catchy tunes, but
> > does that a R n R Hall of Fame band make? No
>
> I agree. They were solid, but not special. Compared with the DC5, for
> example, fewer hits, fewer memorable songs, less original.
The only thing they've got over the DC5 is longevity.....and of course
a partial career on Atlantic.
They are also accepted by the all important "classic rock" crowd, while
the DC5 is not.
JGM
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
> JGM wrote:
> > If the idea is to recognize overall accomplishment, then I don't get
> > the whole idea of "not on the first ballot" -- is this supposed to be a
> > way to create a first- and second-tier within the HOF? Savoy, is there
> > a parallel to the MLB HOF here?
> Can't really be done because the MLB Hall Of Fame does not have to take
> into account intangibles like influence.
I meant specifically the idea that getting in on the "first ballot" is
considered a greater honor than on later tries, which I think you
answered partially.
> If the eventual HOF will include such acts,
> > GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
>
> Let's not get crazy here. GMF is not even known to most of the gerneral
> public of their day. They may deserve to go in, but they are nowhere
> near as important as Fats Domino.
> Perhaps RUN-DMC might be on a par with fats, but not Flash. A better
> comp for Flash might be the Five Royales.
You left off my antecedent phrase, which was "*If* the R&R HOF intends
to take rap seriously as a sub-genre"; GF and "The Message" is an
absolute cornerstone there without which later nominees will make
little sense. If, on the other hand, the thought is that rap/hip-hop
is a seperate genre, then they will nominate (but should not induct)
crossovers like DMC and the Beastie Boys. Trying to take a middle
ground will be deadly here.
JGM
Todd Lucas
> I'd rather it be the Hollies, but the DC5 would be nice.
That's a good one. The Hollies would be a whole lot better chocie than
the DC5. I know the DC5 had a lot of hits but still don't get what
people see in them. They ought to be banned for their terrible version
of "I Like It Like That" alone.
> Joe Tex--An important soul artist, and an influence on rap, but someone
> mentioned Jerry Butler and I would say Butler's more deserving. (Than
> again, they're both more deserving than Percy Sledge.)
>
Agreed, Sledge, an Atlantic artist, sort of set the bar low. Don't get
me wrong, he was good but his career doesn't seem overly special to me.
Tex is more deserving than he was.
> Sir Douglas Quintet--I like them, but, no, I really can't see it.
> Certainly not compared to the likes of the DC5, The Hollies, or Tommy James.
Thanks for mentioning that. I didn't know they'd actually been
nominated. That's terrific, imo. I'd take Doug Sahm and band over the
DC5 or even Tommy James, whom I like a lot. The Sir Douglas Quintet
have a deeper catalogue than a lot of people realize and most of it is
excellent. That said, I doubt they'll be inducted.
Todd
Sav...@aol.com
JGM wrote:
> Savo...@aol.com wrote:
> > JGM wrote:
>
> > > If the idea is to recognize overall accomplishment, then I don't get
> > > the whole idea of "not on the first ballot" -- is this supposed to be a
> > > way to create a first- and second-tier within the HOF? Savoy, is there
> > > a parallel to the MLB HOF here?
>
> > Can't really be done because the MLB Hall Of Fame does not have to take
> > into account intangibles like influence.
>
> I meant specifically the idea that getting in on the "first ballot" is
> considered a greater honor than on later tries, which I think you
> answered partially.
Yes, it's definitely considered important for the all time greats to be
inducted in their first year, although curiously, Joe DiMaggio didn't
get in until his 3rd year on the ballot. I don't know if that was a
backlash to his relatively early retirement, or the writers being
jealous of him because of his then wife, or what. It also may have been
that he actually wasn't officially elegible until 1955, with the rule
then being that you had to have been retired for three years before
being eligible (it's now 5 years), and he may just have gotten a bunch
of write-in votes in 1953 and 1954:
VOTE TOTALS
1945 - 1
1953 - 117
1954 - 175
1955 - 223
Obviously some joker wrote him in on his ballot in 1945, even though at
that time he had only played 7 seasons, three below the minimum needed
for eligibility for the hall. At that pointy DiMag had not played since
'42, as the war was going on and he missed thre full seasons while in
the service.
> > If the eventual HOF will include such acts,
> > > GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
> >
> > Let's not get crazy here. GMF is not even known to most of the gerneral
> > public of their day. They may deserve to go in, but they are nowhere
> > near as important as Fats Domino.
>
> > Perhaps RUN-DMC might be on a par with fats, but not Flash. A better
> > comp for Flash might be the Five Royales.
>
> You left off my antecedent phrase, which was "*If* the R&R HOF intends
> to take rap seriously as a sub-genre"; GF and "The Message" is an
> absolute cornerstone there without which later nominees will make
> little sense. If, on the other hand, the thought is that rap/hip-hop
> is a seperate genre, then they will nominate (but should not induct)
> crossovers like DMC and the Beastie Boys. Trying to take a middle
> ground will be deadly here.
>
> JGM
The only reason that Flash was nominated before RUN-DMC is that they
have now met the minimum 25 year requirement while RUN-DMC still has 2
or 3 years to go on that. I believe their first release was in 1983.
To induct Flash based on one song is ludicrous. If that's the case,
then trhe Sugarhill Gang should go in before Flash does, as "Rapper's
Delight" was easily the first big rap hit, and is much better known by
the masses than "The Message."
Sav...@aol.com
Todd Lucas wrote:
> > I'd rather it be the Hollies, but the DC5 would be nice.
>
> That's a good one. The Hollies would be a whole lot better chocie than
> the DC5. I know the DC5 had a lot of hits but still don't get what
> people see in them. They ought to be banned for their terrible version
> of "I Like It Like That" alone.
There's many HOF acts that some of us don't "get." You can't judge
whether or not an act belongs based on your personal opinion of their
music.
thuggi
"Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote in message
news:1127399533....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'd rather it be the Hollies, but the DC5 would be nice.
>
> That's a good one. The Hollies would be a whole lot better chocie than
> the DC5. I know the DC5 had a lot of hits but still don't get what
> people see in them. They ought to be banned for their terrible version
> of "I Like It Like That" alone.
To each his own. I have no problem with thier version, I heard it first and
I prefer it over Kenner's.
>
> > Sir Douglas Quintet--I like them, but, no, I really can't see it.
> > Certainly not compared to the likes of the DC5, The Hollies, or Tommy
James.
>
> Thanks for mentioning that. I didn't know they'd actually been
> nominated. That's terrific, imo. I'd take Doug Sahm and band over the
> DC5 or even Tommy James, whom I like a lot. The Sir Douglas Quintet
> have a deeper catalogue than a lot of people realize and most of it is
> excellent. That said, I doubt they'll be inducted.
Doug Sahm's TexMex influence and catalog is deeper, but not Sir Douglas'.
>
> Todd
>
Intheway
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Why, is Dial represented on the panel?
>
> Tex didn't actually record for Atlantic, did he?
>
> He recorded for a label that was distributed by Atlantic, as did Sam &
> Dave.
And since Sam & Dave are already in, this answers your own question,
doesn't it? Tex is this year's "Atlantic" entry.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
with "I Like It Like That". This was a strong Top 6 record on very
important stations like WABC and WIBG back in the day, persisting in
heavy rotation for weeks on end, during its season of release. I was
never moved by R&B original, but I'm glad DC5 saw something in the
song. Same way for me with You Got What It Takes.
-L.I.
Sav...@aol.com
Maybe, but he didn't "record" for Atlantic, did he.
Sav...@aol.com
I'm a DC5 fan, but among their remakes of R & B and older rock and
roll, the only one that even is close to the original version IMO is
"Over And Over."
I din't think that "I Like It Like That" is bad by the DC5. It's a good
record, but the Kenner is an excellent record.
If they get in it'll be for their half dozen or so classic songs that
they originated:
Glad All Over
Bits And Pieces
Can't You See That She's Mine
Because
Anyway You Want It
Catch Us If You Can
Not for their competent remakes of older hits.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Enormously disappointed the very deserving following weren't nominated:
> >
> > The Harptones
>
> Why the Harptones?
>
> They never even had a national hit record (pop or R & B) until
> squeaking on to the pop chart with "What Will I Tell My Heart" in 1961.
> They made some excellent ballads, but rock and roll hall of
> fame...that's preposterous. Just not anywhere near well known enough on
> a national basis, let alone a worldwide basis. They're already in the
> UGHA doo-wop hall of fame, that's good enough for them.
>
Well, besides MHO, let's hear what some other people have to say, to
counter-balance what you have to say, or at least provide some
perspective:
(open quote:)
..........................................................................
© 2004 by Marv Goldberg
"Of all the R&B groups to come out of New York City in the 1950s,
without a doubt the Harptones are the most beloved. In a recent UGHA
survey of the top 500 vocal groups, the Harptones, while not having the
number one record, placed more songs (14) in the top 500 than any other
group."
..........................................................................
from JC Marion, at site:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jaymar41/harptones.html
"...In summing up, one must certainly count The Harptones as one of the
foremost practitioners of the art of the Rhythm & Blues vocal group
style. Whenever and wherever recordings in this style are played, the
name and music of The Harptones are never far from the listener. They
remain one of the best ever, and Willie Winfield definitely raised the
bar in the standard he set as a lead singer. Their music will live on
forever and ever."
..........................................................................
look at Harptones' "Sunday Kind of Love" keeping good company on 2001
WABC Top 77 of all time at:
http://musicradio.computer.net/websitesurvey01.html
47. A Sunday Kind of Love - Harptones (1953)
(keeping some pretty exclusive company on that list, weren't they, 48
years later?..............................
Of course, I know you like them and know they are great. It's just
that you shouldn't say they don't belong in R&R HOF, because they're as
deserving as almost any doo-wop group, the best included. Especially
to those that haven't heard them.
Most of all, they are revered and admired by their own kind, from
everything I read and hear, whether it's Lewie Lymon cited them as
people he looked up to, or the Persuasions mentioning them in Looking
For An Echo, as just a couple of examples of what I'm saying.
The Channels? No, New York's finest were the Harptones, led by Willie
Winfield.
wro...@temple.edu
Amazing. Here's a reminder of what the former Mr. Stevens has been up
to since leaving the music biz . . . from the Books section of the NY
Times, 23 May 1989 . . .
LONDON, May 22 -- The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British
television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a
demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I would
have hoped that it'd be the real thing.'
Wes
wro...@temple.edu
> Blondie--interesting question--it's like asking how many high impact
> seasons a ball player needs to get into his sport's hall of fame. High
> peak, important for mixing genres, but were they influential enough to
> overcome a short career at the top?
L.I.-A career at the top means nothing in terms of important and
indispensable music...look at the Monkees...for God's sake, look at the
Archies...LOOK AT DISCO in general!!! No Exile On Main Street, No
London Calling, no Horses, no Marquee Moon in their catalogue anywhere
that I can see. Is any of albums worth a hair on the ass of Blood On
The Tracks? But Debbie Harry was very pretty and very sexually
charismatic and alluring...that much I'll give them. Did they have a
celebrated guitarist like a Nils Lofgren or Sonny Landreth is their
outfit who other artists drooled to have sit in their sessions?
Which raises the question--how big should the R n R HoF be? Should it
just be an inner circle of the really great--Beatles, Stones, Dylan,
etc., or is it a wider collection of talent? And why should an artist
be selected--music innovation / popularity alone, or do other reasons
play a part? Such as exposing a style to the public at large that they
might not have otherwise heard?
If the RnRHoF is more than just an inner circle, then, yeah, Blondie
might fit because they exposed white rock and pop-oriented audiences to
musical styles they might not have otherwise heard.
Wes
wro...@temple.edu
> John Mellencamp--deargodpleaseno! If Mellencamp gets in, does that
> open the doors for other cover bands?
" Not sure exactly what you mean here. "
Just that I always thought that Mellencamp lacked originality.
Wes
Sav...@aol.com
yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> > yougotl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Enormously disappointed the very deserving following weren't nominated:
> > >
> > > The Harptones
> >
> > Why the Harptones?
> >
> > They never even had a national hit record (pop or R & B) until
> > squeaking on to the pop chart with "What Will I Tell My Heart" in 1961.
> > They made some excellent ballads, but rock and roll hall of
> > fame...that's preposterous. Just not anywhere near well known enough on
> > a national basis, let alone a worldwide basis. They're already in the
> > UGHA doo-wop hall of fame, that's good enough for them.
> >
>
> Well, besides MHO, let's hear what some other people have to say, to
> counter-balance what you have to say, or at least provide some
> perspective:
>
> (open quote:)
> ..........................................................................
> © 2004 by Marv Goldberg
>
> "Of all the R&B groups to come out of New York City in the 1950s,
> without a doubt the Harptones are the most beloved. In a recent UGHA
> survey of the top 500 vocal groups, the Harptones, while not having the
> number one record, placed more songs (14) in the top 500 than any other
> group."
The rock and roll hall of fame is not supposed to represent what a
relatively small number (1,000 maybe?) of people in one city think
about one sub-genre of rock and roll. The last I herard from Ronnie I.,
who runs the organization, they only have a few hundred people voting
on that list. One of the reasons why they did so well on the top 500
songs list is because they (Harptones) have appeared at UGHA more times
than any other group from the 50s, and Winfield can still sing well.
They're definitely the house favorite at the shows over the years, but
if this kind of limited interest group should be proof of an artist's
hall of fame worthiness, you've got artists in other parts of the
country who are much bigger regionally, like General Johnson and the
Showmen/Chairmen Of The Board in the Carolinas, for instance, or
somebody like Huey Smith was in New Orleans.
> ..........................................................................
> from JC Marion, at site:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jaymar41/harptones.html
>
> "...In summing up, one must certainly count The Harptones as one of the
> foremost practitioners of the art of the Rhythm & Blues vocal group
> style. Whenever and wherever recordings in this style are played, the
> name and music of The Harptones are never far from the listener. They
> remain one of the best ever, and Willie Winfield definitely raised the
> bar in the standard he set as a lead singer. Their music will live on
> forever and ever."
> ..........................................................................
> look at Harptones' "Sunday Kind of Love" keeping good company on 2001
> WABC Top 77 of all time at:
>
> http://musicradio.computer.net/websitesurvey01.html
>
> 47. A Sunday Kind of Love - Harptones (1953)
>
> (keeping some pretty exclusive company on that list, weren't they, 48
> years later?..............................
Let's see the entire list so we can see who you also think belongs in
the rock and roll hall of fame...maybe the Chords, the Penguins, the
Spaniels, the Crows, the Kingsmen, etc....
>
> Of course, I know you like them and know they are great. It's just
> that you shouldn't say they don't belong in R&R HOF, because they're as
> deserving as almost any doo-wop group, the best included. Especially
> to those that haven't heard them.
No, they are not as deserving as many others, like the Clovers,
Drifters, Coasters, Flamingos, Moonglows, Ravens, Orioles, Five Keys,
Cadillacs, and several others who made a much bigger mark on the
evolution of "rock and roll" than the Harptones did. I don't think you
can induct any artist who is essentially unknown outside of the fans of
their sub-genre.
>
> Most of all, they are revered and admired by their own kind, from
> everything I read and hear, whether it's Lewie Lymon cited them as
> people he looked up to, or the Persuasions mentioning them in Looking
> For An Echo, as just a couple of examples of what I'm saying.
>
> The Channels? No, New York's finest were the Harptones, led by Willie
> Winfield.
When we did our favorite vocal group survey in 1992 on WFUV, the
Solitaires finished as the favorite vocal group from New York, just
ahead of the Harptones. Should we put themn in the Cleveland Hall Of
Fame too?
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > Veering back to Topic #3, I see. Well, even the band's
> > > contributions to the Top 40 world don't seem particularly
> > > distinguished to me.
> >
> > Like someone else said, the only hard rocking British group other than
> > the Beatles in the first half of 1964, they were vying with the Fab
> > Four at times for the most popular English group with American
> > teenagers in the spring of 1964. Certainly the top "bar band" type
> > group from the UK in the 60s.
>
>
> > Particularly, when compared with the other
> > > acts who still aren't included.
> >
> > What top 40 acts from the Dave Clark 5's era, who aren't in yet, do you
> > see as more deserving?
>
> 40 acts from their own era.
So which Top 40 acts from ANY era would you rather see inducted?
Todd Lucas
I disagree at least partially. If I had a vote, I certainly wouldn't
use it on an artist who's music I don't like. I think as a voter, you
have to be able to trust your judgment in that regard. I don't think
the DC5's catalogue is very strong, thus I wouldn't vote for them.
Todd
Sav...@aol.com
> 2) "Lyrics don't matter"
> 3) "Songs vs. albums"
> 4) "Remakes vs. originals"
>
> This would be another example of you trying to awkwardly steer
> discussion back to your Topic #3. Not central to current issue.
You said earlier that there were other top 40 acts that should be
considered before the DC5, I was wondering who you had in mind.
Sav...@aol.com
Todd Lucas wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> > Todd Lucas wrote:
> > > > I'd rather it be the Hollies, but the DC5 would be nice.
> > >
> > > That's a good one. The Hollies would be a whole lot better chocie than
> > > the DC5. I know the DC5 had a lot of hits but still don't get what
> > > people see in them. They ought to be banned for their terrible version
> > > of "I Like It Like That" alone.
> >
> > There's many HOF acts that some of us don't "get." You can't judge
> > whether or not an act belongs based on your personal opinion of their
> > music.
>
> I disagree at least partially. If I had a vote, I certainly wouldn't
> use it on an artist who's music I don't like. I think as a voter, you
> have to be able to trust your judgment in that regard.
So you think that the voters are supposed to use their own musical
taste as to who to vote for?
I would hope that they are instructed to attempt to as objectively as
possible, make a judgment on the merits of the artist's overall career,
including their commercial success, artistic influence, social impact,
musical onnovations, etc....
If all they are going on is each voter's own personal music taste it's
a little nuts to call it a "Hall Of Fame." Wouldn't surprise me at all
if half of the voters have only heard 2 or 3 Joe Tex songs, and maybe
only a couple of Stooges songs and a couple of Sex Pistols songs.
Somehow I don't imagine Seymour Stein listening to the Sex Pistols
entire catalogue before deciding whether or not they will get his vote.
Sav...@aol.com
>
> Rewrite:
>
> "Well, even the band's
> contributions to the Top 40 world don't seem particularly
> musical contributions, top 40 or otherwise of] the other
> acts who still aren't included."
What would an artist have to do for you to see their contributions to
the top 40 world as distinguished?
DC5 had 5 singles that made the top 5
8 singles that made the top ten.
14 singles that made the top 20.
They rank among the top 20 singles acts of the 1960s on the U.S.
charts.
About half of their hit singles were original songs, a couple of which
can be considered classics IMO.
Many local bands formed around the U.S. that were modeled after the
DC5, with the power drums and the sax as part of the band.
Despite not getting much critical acclaim for their LPs, they did have
4 top ten pop chart LPs, one of which was a greatest hits thing. They
made a movie or two, and in general were an earlier, harder rocking
Monkees without the TV show, and with more musical talent, and a more
defined sound of their own.
They also have several good lesser known songs on flip sides and LPs,
things like:
Mighty Good Loving
Look Before You Leap
Dr. Rhythm
I remember dozens of times playing "Bits And Pieces" in clubs as late
as the mid 1980s with 300 people going absolutely crazy to the beat of
that record. They had the energy of punk rockers long before that genre
started.
One thing that hurt them is that Clark himself owned all of the
masters, and he refused to reissue anything for many years, so their
music was unavailable for many years.
This may not be the best way to guage them, but they were certainly
more significant than Del Shannon, Gene Pitney and Percy Sledge, who
all have been inducted already.
DianeE
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127365516.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> DianeE wrote:
> > <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1127358303....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > JGM wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If the eventual HOF will include such [rap/hip-hop] acts,
> > > > GF&tFF is as important as Fats Domino.
> > >
> > > Let's not get crazy here. GMF is not even known to most of the
gerneral
> > > public of their day. They may deserve to go in, but they are nowhere
> > > near as important as Fats Domino.
> > I agree that they are not as important (or prolific) as Fats Domino, but
I
> > disagree that they were not known to most of the general public of their
> > day.
>
> Thsi from somebody who never heard of U-2.
--------
I certainly heard *of* them; I've heard *of* them for many years. I even
know the stupid stage names of their lead singer and lead guitarist. I just
haven't heard their music. Can't name a single song they recorded. Used to
get them confused with UB-40.
DianeE
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > "Well, even the band's
> > > contributions to the Top 40 world don't seem particularly
> > > distinguished to me. Particularly, when compared with [the general
> > > musical contributions, top 40 or otherwise of] the other
> > > acts who still aren't included."
> >
> > What would an artist have to do for you to see their contributions to
> > the top 40 world as distinguished?
>
> initially charted.
>
> A shallow, dated band.
>
> > I remember dozens of times playing "Bits And Pieces" in clubs as late
> > as the mid 1980s with 300 people going absolutely crazy to the beat of
> > that record.
>
> club scene as a measure of anything. And I'm not even talking
> about the clubs *20 years ago*.
That's the problem. You can't use the club scene in 2005 to measure the
worth of 40 year old records. Many clubgoers in 2005 just have never
been exposed to lots of things they would like. The fact that the Dave
Clark 5 had lasting popularity for about 20 years after they were off
the charts is significant. They may sound dated (to you) now, but
everything eventually sounds dated when enough time goes by. Most of
the Beatles '63 and '64 stuff is in the same boat with the DC5 stuff of
those years. "If I Fell" doesn't sound any less dated than "Because,"
and "Please Please Me" sounds even more dated than "Glad All Over" and
"Bits And Pieces."
I'm sure there's plenty of acts who are big now who will be totally
forgotten in 15 years. Look how fast someone like Frampton faded away.
I think your real problem with them is that their songs did not have
any special lyrical content or message, probably the same reason that
you don't like much 50s stuff very much. The artists in most cases just
wanted to rock, not to put forth an agenda.
Intheway
The LPs came out on Atlantic. The promotion, publicity and marketing
were all handled by Atlantic.
No, he didn't "record" for Atlantic. So what? Atlantic considered him
one of theirs. They still do. That's what counts as far as the HoF
vote is concerned, and that makes him a virtual lock.
Even if his career was completely on smaller labels, there's a fair
case to be made for his inclusion in the Hall. He was one of the first
soul performers to focus on writing his own songs, and his judgment
here was dead on; he was one hell of a songwriter. He is often
remembered by other soul performers of the era as one of the best live
acts of the time and a consummate professional, on stage and off. He
was a mentor to many performers. And he was one hell of a singer.
Bob Roman
> "The Message" peaked at # 62 on the Billboard pop singles chart, and
> the group never had a bigger hit than that. Their biggest albumn did
> not crack the top 50 on the album chart. They just were not known to
> most of the general public, and that's the way it was. Sure the record
> was much bigger in the part of the world where you reside (New York
> City), but nobody ever heard of the group in many parts of the U.S. and
> of the world.
Where I lived, no radio station touched "The Message." But everybody at my
high school knew about it anyway. Some loved it and some hated it, but
everyone seemed to have an opinion.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
> Can't really be done because the MLB Hall Of Fame does not have to take
> into account intangibles like influence.
That's not what Candy Cummings says.
Bob Roman
Todd Lucas
> I think your real problem with them is that their songs did not have
> any special lyrical content or message, probably the same reason that
> you don't like much 50s stuff very much. The artists in most cases just
> wanted to rock, not to put forth an agenda.
But that's certainly not my problem with them. It's funny too because
a lot of the people I know who like the same stuff I do think the Dave
Clark 5 are great. I just don't see it though. At best, I can take
'em or leave 'em. And I'd take "Please Please Me" over anything by the
DC5.
Todd
Todd Lucas
> So you think that the voters are supposed to use their own musical
> taste as to who to vote for?
To an extent, yes. As long as you don't dislike a band for some
personal reason, then I think it's possible to be "objective" about not
liking their music, at least within the confines of your own musical
taste. And the DC5 certainly fall within one of my main areas of
interest, namely mid-sixties rock and roll, so I think that I'm
qualified to judge them on that level. That doesn't mean all of the
other voters would agree with my assessment, nor that they're wrong for
not agreeing with it.
>
> I would hope that they are instructed to attempt to as objectively as
> possible, make a judgment on the merits of the artist's overall career,
> including their commercial success, artistic influence, social impact,
> musical onnovations, etc....
Sheesh Bruce, social impact is more important than whether or not the
band was any good? Besides, I didn't say it was the only criterion I
would use but you gotta admit the DC5 are a fairly borderline case for
induction using your "objective" criteria. The fact that I think they
stunk wouldn't exactly tip the scales in their favor.
>
> If all they are going on is each voter's own personal music taste it's
> a little nuts to call it a "Hall Of Fame." Wouldn't surprise me at all
> if half of the voters have only heard 2 or 3 Joe Tex songs, and maybe
> only a couple of Stooges songs and a couple of Sex Pistols songs.
> Somehow I don't imagine Seymour Stein listening to the Sex Pistols
> entire catalogue before deciding whether or not they will get his vote.
LOL, well that's true. I assume many of the voters aren't too well
versed in the music of several of the nominees. But the hall more or
less claims that it's the nominating committee's job to put up worthy
candidates each year. Assuming they do their job (and they do, just
ask self proclaimed expert Dave Marsh), then all of the nominees should
be qualified for induction based on the stuff you want considered.
Todd
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > That's the problem. You can't use the club scene in 2005 to measure the
> > worth of 40 year old records.
>
\
The record was only 20 years old then, big difference. The people in
these clubs now were not even close to being born when the Dave Clark 5
was popular. Almost everything will eventually run its course.
>
> > The fact that the Dave
> > Clark 5 had lasting popularity for about 20 years after they were off
> > the charts is significant.
>
> You're equating a personal experience with people dancing in clubs
> to one of their songs to "lasting popularity." There's a good
> chance many of those people didn't even know who was singing.
So what. They know the titles of the songs to request them. There are
literally millions of people who love thousands of songs where they
don't know who the artist is. People sing along with songs all day on
the radio when they may not know who is performing the song. It's up to
the people who do know do discern this and to honor the artists who
made these songs.
>
> > They may sound dated (to you) now, but
> > everything eventually sounds dated when enough time goes by.
>
> And for some, less time needs to go by.
>
> > Most of
> > the Beatles '63 and '64 stuff is in the same boat with the DC5 stuff of
> > those years.
>
> No, it isn't. Because Beatles songs are far more musically
> advanced.
So how is "If I Fell" far more musically advanced than "Because," and
even if it is, that doesn't stop it from sounding dated to the layman,
which is what 95% of people who like music are. Certainly "Please
Please Me" sounds more dated now than "Glad All Over," and both are
from right around the same time in 1963. Most music fans don't know a
thing about music being advanced or not, they just know what they hear.
>
> > I think your real problem with them is that their songs did not have
> > any special lyrical content or message, probably the same reason that
> > you don't like much 50s stuff very much. The artists in most cases just
> > wanted to rock, not to put forth an agenda.
>
> And here comes Topic #2.
Mike, your problem is that you are a musical snob. You think that
because you are a musician that you somehow know better than the rest
of us peons what's good, and what's not good, and art just doesn't work
that way. If it did, you'd be a famous recording artist, instead of a
person who worships other famous recording artists.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
> Savo...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Maybe, but he didn't "record" for Atlantic, did he.
>
> The LPs came out on Atlantic. The promotion, publicity and marketing
> were all handled by Atlantic.
>
> No, he didn't "record" for Atlantic. So what? Atlantic considered him
> one of theirs. They still do. That's what counts as far as the HoF
> vote is concerned, and that makes him a virtual lock.
Nobody's denying any of that. You said...
""Please remember who Joe Tex recorded for. He's a shoo in. """
And I just pointed out that recording for Dial doesn't make you any
shoo-in.
Do you deny that when you said """Please remember who Joe Tex recorded
for. He's a shoo in. """ that you slipped up and were thinking that
he actually "recorded" for Atlantic?
Sav...@aol.com
But do you think that people in their mid-30s at the time were aware of
the record, like your teachers?
I don't buy Diane's take that left over hippies were aware of the
record. If people in your high school knew the song it was most likely
because MTV started playing it heavily at one point.
Sav...@aol.com
We all know Cummings was a mistake that can't be fixed.
When Steve Yeager gets in for inventing the throat guard, or Elston
Howard for inventing the batting donut, or Dave Concepcion for first
using the one hop throw to 1B off of the turf, then I'll believe that
influence means something.
Sav...@aol.com
Todd Lucas wrote:
> > So you think that the voters are supposed to use their own musical
> > taste as to who to vote for?
>
> To an extent, yes. As long as you don't dislike a band for some
> personal reason, then I think it's possible to be "objective" about not
> liking their music, at least within the confines of your own musical
> taste. And the DC5 certainly fall within one of my main areas of
> interest, namely mid-sixties rock and roll, so I think that I'm
> qualified to judge them on that level. That doesn't mean all of the
> other voters would agree with my assessment, nor that they're wrong for
> not agreeing with it.
> >
> > I would hope that they are instructed to attempt to as objectively as
> > possible, make a judgment on the merits of the artist's overall career,
> > including their commercial success, artistic influence, social impact,
> > musical onnovations, etc....
>
> Sheesh Bruce, social impact is more important than whether or not the
> band was any good?
Apparently it is or how else do you explain the nomination of the Sex
Pistols? Ceratinly nobody could possibly want them in purely because
their music was good.
Assuming they do their job (and they do, just
> ask self proclaimed expert Dave Marsh), then all of the nominees should
> be qualified for induction based on the stuff you want considered.
The problem is that there is a strong bias towards post 1964 artists
who are perceived to have been hip with the FM rock crowd and the
hippie crowd, and against the artists that were mainly hit singles
makers. An artist like Tommy James & the Shondells was just as
significant, if not more so, than the Mamas & the Papas, for instance,
but TJ has never even been nominated while the less successful Mamas &
Papas have been inducted for years already.
There's also the Atlantic problem, which gets in totally undeserving
candidates like Percy Sledge, and also pushes in borderline candidates
like the Rascals.
What makes the Rascals any more significant than the DC5 or Tommy
James?
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com (Topic #3):
>
> > The problem is that there is a strong bias towards post 1964 artists
> > who are perceived to have been hip with the FM rock crowd and the
> > hippie crowd, and against the artists that were mainly hit singles
> > makers. An artist like Tommy James & the Shondells was just as
> > significant, if not more so, than the Mamas & the Papas, for instance,
> > but TJ has never even been nominated while the less successful Mamas &
> > Papas have been inducted for years already.
>
Not really. They had 6 big hit singles, but also had some critical
acclaim for their albums, the first four of which all made the top 5 on
the Billboard album charts and were each on those charts for more than
a year. Their first album was on the charts for two years. They were
also embraced by the hippie crowd, as I mentioned above, while other
singles hit makers (DC5, Tommy James, Hollies) were not.
Sav...@aol.com
Here's the results of a survey done a few years ago in the 60s group
where the members were askewd to provide a list of their 40 favorite
artists of the decade. Here's the results of that vote:
# 1 - THE BEATLES
# 2 - ROLLING STONES
# 3 - KINKS
# 4 - BOB DYLAN
# 5 - BEACH BOYS
# 6 - BYRDS
# 7 - THE WHO
# 8 - JIMI HENDRIX
# 9 - OTIS REDDING
# 10 - SMOKEY ROBINSON & THE MIRACLES
# 11 - JAMES BROWN
# 12 - CREAM
# 13 - HOLLIES
# 14 - YARDBIRDS
# 15 - THE TEMPTATIONS
# 16 - VELVET UNDERGROUND
# 17 - ANIMALS
# 18 - ARETHA FRANKLIN
# 19 - LOVE
# 20 - FOUR TOPS
# 21 - WILSON PICKETT
# 22 - CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL
# 23 - ROY ORBISON
# 24 - BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD
# 25 - MARVIN GAYE
# 26 - PAUL REVERE AND THE RAIDERS
# 27 - SIMON AND GARUNKEL
# 28 - THEM / VAN MORRISON
# 29 - ZOMBIES
# 30 - LOVIN' SPOONFUL
# 31 - SMALL FACES
# 32 - DOORS
# 33 - DAVE CLARK FIVE
# 34 - JEFFERSON AIRPLANE
# 35 - SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE
# 36 - SAM AND DAVE
# 37 - CAPTAIN BEEFHEART
# 38 - THE TURTLES
# 39 - THE BAND
# 40 - STEVIE WONDER
# 41 - JOHNNY CASH
# 42 - LEFT BANKE
# 43 - MAMAS AND PAPAS
# 44 - SAM COOKE
# 45 - CURTIS MAYFIELD & IMPRESSIONS
# 46 - DRIFTERS
# 47 - MANFRED MANN
# 48 - DUSTY SPRINGFIELD
# 49 - B.B. KING
# 50 - THE MOVE
# 51 - HOWLIN' WOLF
# 52 - FRANK ZAPPA & MOTHERS OF INVENTION
# 53 - RONETTES
# 54 - DONOVAN
# 55 - SONICS
# 56 - FOUR SEASONS
# 57 - PRETTY THINGS
# 58 - SUPREMES
# 59 - FAIRPORT CONVENTION
# 60 - MC5
# 61 - MARTHA & VANDELLAS
# 62 - MOODY BLUES
# 63 - STEPPENWOLF
# 64 - BOOKER T. & THE MG's
# 65 - TRAFFIC
# 66 - ELVIS PRESLEY
# 67 - IKE & TINA TURNER
# 68 - BOBBY "BLUE" BLAND
# 69 - ASSOCIATION
# 70 - MERLE HAGGARD
# 71 - DEL SHANNON
# 72 - MITCH RYDER AND DETROIT WHEELS
# 73 - GRASS ROOTS
# 74 - RASCALS
# 75 - MONKEES
# 76 - MUDDY WATERS
# 77 - EASYBEATS
# 78 - PROCOL HARUM
# 79 - HERMAN'S HERMITS
# 80 - PINK FLOYD
# 81 - ETTA JAMES
# 82 - TROGGS
# 83 - BOBBY FULLER FOUR
# 84 - IRMA THOMAS
# 85 - TIM HARDIN
# 86 - BEE GEES
# 87 - SIR DOUGLAS QUINTET
# 88 - JUNIOR WALKER & THE ALL-STARS
# 89 - RAY CHARLES
# 90 - SEEDS
# 91 - SOLOMON BURKE
# 92 - VENTURES
# 93 - YOUNGBLOODS
# 94 - McCOYS
# 95 - TRASHMEN
# 96 - EVERLY BROTHERS
# 97 - BONZO DOG BAND
# 98 - 13TH FLOOR ELEVATORS
# 99 - WILLIAM BELL
# 100 - LITTLE MILTON
Notice that the mamas & Papas (# 43) finished well below the Raiders (#
26) and the Dave Clark 5 (# 33).
Notice alsom that the Hall Of Fame Rascals (# 74) finished well below
the Zombies (# 29) and the Hollies (# 13), who were the highest
finishers here who are not in the Cleveland hall of fame yet.
Among other artists whose careers were almost entirely in the 60s,
other Cleveland inductees who did not fare that well here include
Solomon Burke (# 91), Del Shannon (# 71), and Martha & the Vandellas (#
61).
The Supremes (# 58) finished well below the Turtles (# 38).
If the people here had their way the Hollies and Love would be getting
inducted.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > Most of
> > > > the Beatles '63 and '64 stuff is in the same boat with the DC5 stuff of
> > > > those years.
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. Because Beatles songs are far more musically
> > > advanced.
> >
> > So how is "If I Fell" far more musically advanced than "Because,"
>
> blatantly recycles Beatle-esque trademarks, such as resolving
> melodic phrases with an augmented V chord instead of just a
> straight V.
And do you actually think that even 1% of listeners care about what
chords are being played. I would bet most hall of fame voters could not
even tell you what chords are being played. The hall of "FAME" is not
about judging music, it's about judging the accomplishments of the
recording artists. MOST voters have probably not even heard that much
material by most nominees.
How many Grandmaster Flash songs do you think that Ertegun can name?
The fact that you say that the DC5 recycles Beatle trademarks is not
really relevant as to whether "Beacuse" is more or less dates sounding
than "If I Fell." Whatever the reasons, they are each about equally
dated.
Sav...@aol.com
> >
> > Not really. They had 6 big hit singles, but also had some critical
> > acclaim for their albums, the first four of which all made the top 5 on
> > the Billboard album charts and were each on those charts for more than
> > a year. Their first album was on the charts for two years.
>
No, I never said that people bought albums based on singles. I said
that by the 1970s people thought in terms of albums rather than in
terms of songs. Besides, people who buy albums because of sinmgles
don't comntinue to buy those albums for 63 weeks.
> Walk into any record store and look up the band, and the most
> likely CD you'll find will be a greatest-hits collection. The
> Mamas & Papas were a singles band. Marginally less of a singles
> band than Tommy James, but not by much.
>
> On Amazon, eight of the nine top-selling M&Ps CDs are anthologies.
This is 2005 Mike, not many people are interested in the Mamas & Papas
anymore beyond their greatest hits. Other than the Beatles and Stones,
almost every 60s act you can name will mainly be selling anthologies
these days, at least of their 60s material.
Besides, the main reason that the Mamas & Papas got inducted over acts
like Tommy James and the Hollies is because of the hippie appeal, being
at Monterey Pop, shit like that. They are perceived as being more a
part of that portion of society back then, which wins them points with
the voters for some insane reason.
Certainly Tommy James was more musically innovative than the Mamas &
Papas were.
TB Sheets
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127457482....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
No he wasn't.
Tommy was a slick pop producer, and he tried to go along with the times but
was just a tad too pop. He made great songs, produced them well and it
worked for awhile. HOF material? Maybe, but he sure didn't influence
anyone; he was a follower, not a leader.
John Phillips wrote, performed and produced the intricate harmonies and pop
records that did indeed define a sub-generation. They certainly deserve to
be in there.
>
TB Sheets
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127456467.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But this list is an isolated group of people and pretty much meaningless
outside that forum.
You yourself say the laymen are 95% of the listeners who are not tuned in to
much more than hearing something they like. So if these people are more
knowledgable about the 60's music they may make choices that you approve of
but in the rest of the world there is little value in this list, especially
to use it in an argument about who's ranked higher than who.
Lists, like many numbers, are bogus.
>
Sav...@aol.com
> > where the members were askewd to provide a list of their 40 favorite
> > artists of the decade.
>
> which prove absolutely nothing about the larger world.
They prove just as much as your take on the musical complexity of the
artists. Besides, you more than anyone are obseesed with the "album
survivor" tournaments that also prove nothing about the larger world.
Do you really think that Big Star would stand a chance in an "album
survivor" contest with hundreds of thousands of voters?
TB Sheets
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127456874....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike G wrote:
>> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>> > > > Most of
>> > > > the Beatles '63 and '64 stuff is in the same boat with the DC5
>> > > > stuff of
>> > > > those years.
>> > >
>> > > No, it isn't. Because Beatles songs are far more musically
>> > > advanced.
>> >
>> > So how is "If I Fell" far more musically advanced than "Because,"
>>
>> You'd know if you were musical. You also might know how "Because"
>> blatantly recycles Beatle-esque trademarks, such as resolving
>> melodic phrases with an augmented V chord instead of just a
>> straight V.
>
> And do you actually think that even 1% of listeners care about what
> chords are being played.
No. BUT they "feel" it. They sense it and it affects them. It's no
mystery why the Beatles are number one. They constructed their songs in a
fashion that delighted musicians and that regular people responded to
instinctively. That's what music does.
As to DC5, they did indeed begin to consciously emulate the Fabs
songwriting, and they did very well. But it was still following.
I would bet most hall of fame voters could not
> even tell you what chords are being played. The hall of "FAME" is not
> about judging music, it's about judging the accomplishments of the
> recording artists. MOST voters have probably not even heard that much
> material by most nominees.
I believe it is about many things, not just one criteria.
>
> How many Grandmaster Flash songs do you think that Ertegun can name?
More than I can.
>
> The fact that you say that the DC5 recycles Beatle trademarks is not
> really relevant as to whether "Beacuse" is more or less dates sounding
> than "If I Fell." Whatever the reasons, they are each about equally
> dated.
If I Fell is not dated, nor is Please Please Me. Glad All Over gets far
more airplay, it's the DC5's acknowledged greatist hit. I love so many DC5
songs, the first 5 or 6 they came out with were just dynamite, bam bam bam.
It didn't matter they were copying the Beatles because everyone was, trying
to figure out the hit 'formula'. Luckily for us DC5 had talent and a great
sound and it carried them for about a year. Then they dropped from the top.
IF you were there at the time, none of these songs sound dated because you
remember when they were new. And the songs are so ingrained in our personas
that 1.) it makes it hard to judge them objectively, and 2.) it's hard to
hear the dated bits.
>
Sav...@aol.com
But how about people who were in their 30s at the time, like your
teachers. Do you think that they were aware of it?
If kids at your school knew about it it was because of MTV starting to
play it heavily a bit after it was out. I don't buy Diane's take that
people in their 30s whgo had been hippies in the 60s were all that
familiar with the record.
TB Sheets
"Mike G" <mikeg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mikeg24859-93C6A...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> > You'd know if you were musical. You also might know how "Because"
>> > blatantly recycles Beatle-esque trademarks, such as resolving
>> > melodic phrases with an augmented V chord instead of just a
>> > straight V.
>>
>> And do you actually think that even 1% of listeners care about what
>> chords are being played. I would bet most hall of fame voters could not
>> even tell you what chords are being played. The hall of "FAME" is not
>> about judging music, it's about judging the accomplishments of the
>> recording artists.
>
> remember -- all that matters is how well the songs sold, when
> first released.
>
>> The fact that you say that the DC5 recycles Beatle trademarks is not
>> really relevant as to whether "Beacuse" is more or less dates sounding
>> than "If I Fell." Whatever the reasons, they are each about equally
>> dated.
>
> easy-listening muzak compared with "If I Fell." The playing is
> more generic, the singing more polite and "square."
This is absolutely true.
No nursing
> home would object to that tune.
Hey now!!
Sav...@aol.com
TB Sheets wrote:
>
> Tommy was a slick pop producer, and he tried to go along with the times but
> was just a tad too pop.
He was far less pop than the Mamas & Papas. What did they ever do that
rocked like "Mony Mony" or "Hanky Panky?"
They were too busy doing wimpy remakes of "Dedicated To The One I Love"
and "Dancing In The Street."
He made great songs, produced them well and it
> worked for awhile. HOF material? Maybe, but he sure didn't influence
> anyone; he was a follower, not a leader.
He influenced all of the artists who remade his songs, including Joan
Jett, Billy Idol and countless other new wave artists.
Ever hear "Hanky Panky" by Tin Pan Valley?
There were even latin and R & B versions of "Crystal Blue Persuasion"
at the time.
> John Phillips wrote, performed and produced the intricate harmonies and pop
> records that did indeed define a sub-generation. They certainly deserve to
> be in there.
What is intricate about "Words Of Love" and "Creeque Alley?"
"Crystal Blue Persuasion" sounds a lot more intricate to me than most
Mamas & Papas records.
Why is defining hippies more important than defining the "Silent
Majority?"
If hippies were so great, why don't you quit your job, and go live in
soime commune somewhere and maybe take a shower a couple of times a
month. We shouldn;t be celebrating hippies, we should be scorning them.
Sav...@aol.com
> >
> > No, I never said that people bought albums based on singles. I said
> > that by the 1970s people thought in terms of albums rather than in
> > don't continue to buy those albums for 63 weeks.
>
> Sure they do.
>
> Just glancing at the current Billboard top 50....
>
> Kelly Clarkson album at #18, charting for 42 weeks.
> Gwen Stefani album at #34, charting for 43 weeks.
> Keith Urban album at #37, charting for 52 weeks.
> Rascal Flatts album at #25, charting after 51 weeks.
>
> I would say all of these albums are singles-driven releases. Think
> it's so outlandish any of them will make it to 66 weeks?
I know nothing about any of these artists, and you can't compare what
people do in 2005 to what they did 40 years ago, when singles were
still the main format for buyers of hit records. The last time I was in
the record business (10 years ago), they did not even make most singles
available for more than a few weeks before deleting them from the
catalog to force album sales.
Sav...@aol.com
> >
> > No, I never said that people bought albums based on singles. I said
> > that by the 1970s people thought in terms of albums rather than in
> > don't continue to buy those albums for 63 weeks.
>
> Sure they do.
>
> Just glancing at the current Billboard top 50....
>
> Kelly Clarkson album at #18, charting for 42 weeks.
> Gwen Stefani album at #34, charting for 43 weeks.
> Keith Urban album at #37, charting for 52 weeks.
> Rascal Flatts album at #25, charting after 51 weeks.
You can't judge 60s singles bands buy what's happening now, when most
recored buyers have grwon up not even knowing what a 45 is.
Here's some hit singles from the 60s, and how the albums did:
I Fought The Law - Bobby Fuller - album peaked at # 144, 2 weeks on
chart
You Got What It Takes - Dave Clark 5 - album peaked at # 149, 3 weeks
on chart
My Love (# 1 song) - Petula Clark - album peaked at # 68, 12 weeks on
chart
Let's Live For Today - GRass Roots - album peaked at # 75, 15 weeks on
chart
Soul Man - Sam & Dave - album peaked at # 62, 13 weeks on chart
Bus Stop - Hollies - album peaked at # 75, 11 weeks on chart
For Your Love - Yardbirds - album peaked at # 96, 11 weeks on chart
Mony Mony - Tommy James - album peaked at # 193, 2 weeks on chart
Heat Wave - Martha & Vandellas - album peaked at # 125, 5 weeks on
chart
Ronettes - Be My Baby - album peaked at # 96, 8 weeks on chart
I can go on and on like this for a long time. There were many huge hit
singles in the 60s where the albums did not even make the charts at
all. Very few people bought albums in the 60s just to get hit singles.
The Mamas & Papas had much bigger hit albums than almost any act that
you could define as a "singles act."
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
"Because" sounds like > easy-listening muzak compared with "If I Fell."
nursing
> home would object to that tune.
As if "If I Fell" and its rocking flip side (And I Love Her) would give
the old codgers heart attacks, right?
TB Sheets
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127459261....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> TB Sheets wrote:
>>
>> Tommy was a slick pop producer, and he tried to go along with the times
>> but
>> was just a tad too pop.
>
> He was far less pop than the Mamas & Papas. What did they ever do that
> rocked like "Mony Mony" or "Hanky Panky?"
>
> They were too busy doing wimpy remakes of "Dedicated To The One I Love"
> and "Dancing In The Street."
Clearly you have issues about M&P, which disqualifies you further on judging
them against anyone else.
>
>
> He made great songs, produced them well and it
>> worked for awhile. HOF material? Maybe, but he sure didn't influence
>> anyone; he was a follower, not a leader.
>
> He influenced all of the artists who remade his songs, including Joan
> Jett, Billy Idol and countless other new wave artists.
No, they simply remade his songs.
>
> Ever hear "Hanky Panky" by Tin Pan Valley?
No. Nor do I care to.
>
> There were even latin and R & B versions of "Crystal Blue Persuasion"
> at the time.
Cover versions.
>
>> John Phillips wrote, performed and produced the intricate harmonies and
>> pop
>> records that did indeed define a sub-generation. They certainly deserve
>> to
>> be in there.
>
> What is intricate about "Words Of Love" and "Creeque Alley?"
Why pick two songs? Because you're thrashing here. WOL is a great
rockingbelter, and it features Cass, not the whole group upfront. Creeque
Alley is a nice little bio. I canname flaccid TJ songs as well. Your
criteria seems to shift at any given time.
>
> "Crystal Blue Persuasion" sounds a lot more intricate to me than most
> Mamas & Papas records.
Well, that's you. There is a rest of the world outside your front door you
know.
>
> Why is defining hippies more important than defining the "Silent
> Majority?"
huh?
>
> If hippies were so great, why don't you quit your job, and go live in
> soime commune somewhere and maybe take a shower a couple of times a
> month. We shouldn;t be celebrating hippies, we should be scorning them.
You obviously weren't there, you're some kid who scorned the groove
population before you. Again, your singular burden. It was a great time to
be alive. Tough breaks you missed it.
I was a hippie, I lived in a commune, I went thru all those values and there
wasn't a damned thing wrong with them. I remember it quite fondly.
>
Intheway
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> Nobody's denying any of that. You said...
>
> ""Please remember who Joe Tex recorded for. He's a shoo in. """
>
> And I just pointed out that recording for Dial doesn't make you any
> shoo-in.
>
> Do you deny that when you said """Please remember who Joe Tex recorded
> for. He's a shoo in. """ that you slipped up and were thinking that
> he actually "recorded" for Atlantic?
Aha.
This is all about the Gator, the dance that didn't exist, isn't it?
You think you found me making some mistake, and this is your chance to
reinflate your ego.
(Or is this about Janis Joplin not doing the original "Mercedes Benz?")
Move on, Bruce. Go to the light.
Tex isn't going into the Hall of Fame because he recorded singles for
Dial. The major push is coming because of his affiliation with
Atlantic, who put out his LPs, marketed his records and distributed
them.
If you think this is some fantastic triumph for you, so be it. If
history is any indication, it won't be long before you screw something
up again, so enjoy your brief time in the sun.
Bob Roman
> And do you actually think that even 1% of listeners care about what
> chords are being played.
The blueprint of song construction determines what the listener hears. You
don't have to know what you're hearing for it to affect you.
To take it back to a baseball analogy, lets say someone at a bar wonders why
Ted Williams was a great hitter. An old coach pipes in describing the
efficiency of Williams' swing. The first guy at this point would not say,
"Do you actually think that even 1% of baseball fans care about the
mechanics of a swing?"
> MOST voters have probably not even heard that much
> material by most nominees.
> How many Grandmaster Flash songs do you think that Ertegun can name?
I bet you'd be surprised.
Bob Roman
Todd Lucas
> > Sheesh Bruce, social impact is more important than whether or not the
> > band was any good?
>
> Apparently it is or how else do you explain the nomination of the Sex
> Pistols? Ceratinly nobody could possibly want them in purely because
> their music was good.
I think their music was good. But my point was the nominating
committee puts up bands at least partially for the reasons you
describe. That doesn't mean that you have to vote with the exact same
things in mind. Like I said, if the committee does its job then every
nominee will already fit your criteria.
>
>
> Assuming they do their job (and they do, just
> > ask self proclaimed expert Dave Marsh), then all of the nominees should
> > be qualified for induction based on the stuff you want considered.
>
> The problem is that there is a strong bias towards post 1964 artists
> who are perceived to have been hip with the FM rock crowd and the
> hippie crowd, and against the artists that were mainly hit singles
> makers. An artist like Tommy James & the Shondells was just as
> significant, if not more so, than the Mamas & the Papas, for instance,
> but TJ has never even been nominated while the less successful Mamas &
> Papas have been inducted for years already.
Well, I see your point here and agree with you. Like I said, I'd love
to see someone like Paul Revere & the Raiders enshrined (though it's
more hypothetical - I don't really care much about the rockhall or what
it does). But that has its limits. What if Herman's Hermits were on
the ballot? They had lots of hit singles and certainly werent known
for their albums. Would you vote for them too?
>
> There's also the Atlantic problem, which gets in totally undeserving
> candidates like Percy Sledge, and also pushes in borderline candidates
> like the Rascals.
>
> What makes the Rascals any more significant than the DC5 or Tommy
> James?
Well, I'd argue that at least they were a better band than the DC5.
But, in general I see your point. There should be no place for
favortism in the nominating process.
Todd
Todd Lucas
> > > > that by the 1970s people thought in terms of albums rather than in
> > > > terms of songs. Besides, people who buy albums because of singles
> > > > don't continue to buy those albums for 63 weeks.
> > >
> > > Sure they do.
> > >
> > > Just glancing at the current Billboard top 50....
> > >
> > > Kelly Clarkson album at #18, charting for 42 weeks.
> > > Gwen Stefani album at #34, charting for 43 weeks.
> > > Keith Urban album at #37, charting for 52 weeks.
> > > Rascal Flatts album at #25, charting after 51 weeks.
> >
> > You can't judge 60s singles bands buy what's happening now, when most
> > recored buyers have grwon up not even knowing what a 45 is.
>
> quarrels that he starts responding to the same posts twice.
Yes, but Bruce is right about this. Kelly Clarkson sells a lot of CD's
(albums) because that's the format most people buy today, without
regard to her musical style. Obviously, that wasn't the case in 1964.
Todd
TB Sheets
> less geriatric than "Because."
I dunno. They both seem about the same pace.
Mike
Pistols? Ceratinly nobody could possibly want them in purely because
their music was good."
Admittedly,I did buy Never Mind The Bollocks because of all the hype
surrounding the band,and because I wanted to see for myself if this band
was indeed the antichrists that the press made them out to be.Imagine my
surprise when it actually turned out to be a great album,whose music
still holds up today.Talk about a musical snob-dissing the Pistols while
endlessly going on about the virtues of an also ran band like the
DC5...and before you attack me for "being a johnny-come-lately" 25 year
old punk lovin' know nothing,I'll tell you that I'm a 46 year old
ex-hippy who bases his opinions on the MUSIC,not statistics or
influence.
Sav...@aol.com
TB Sheets wrote:
> You obviously weren't there, you're some kid who scorned the groove
> population before you. Again, your singular burden. It was a great time to
> be alive. Tough breaks you missed it.
No, I didn't scorn them, I thought it was cool....THEN, when I was 12.
>
> I was a hippie, I lived in a commune, I went thru all those values and there
> wasn't a damned thing wrong with them. I remember it quite fondly.
> >
So go back there and re-live those great times.
Sav...@aol.com
Bob Roman wrote:
> <Sav...@aol.com> wrote...
> > And do you actually think that even 1% of listeners care about what
> > chords are being played.
>
> The blueprint of song construction determines what the listener hears. You
> don't have to know what you're hearing for it to affect you.
>
> To take it back to a baseball analogy, lets say someone at a bar wonders why
> Ted Williams was a great hitter. An old coach pipes in describing the
> efficiency of Williams' swing. The first guy at this point would not say,
> "Do you actually think that even 1% of baseball fans care about the
> mechanics of a swing?"
Exactly. Nobody cares about what goes into making a song, or a hitter
great. They just care about results.
>
> > MOST voters have probably not even heard that much
> > material by most nominees.
> > How many Grandmaster Flash songs do you think that Ertegun can name?
>
> I bet you'd be surprised.
I bet you would.
thuggi
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127487673.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> TB Sheets wrote:
> > You obviously weren't there, you're some kid who scorned the groove
> > population before you. Again, your singular burden. It was a great
time to
> > be alive. Tough breaks you missed it.
>
> No, I didn't scorn them, I thought it was cool....THEN, when I was 12.
Well obviously you suffered some severe blunt trauma to the head when you
were 13.
>
>
> >
> > I was a hippie, I lived in a commune, I went thru all those values and
there
> > wasn't a damned thing wrong with them. I remember it quite fondly.
> > >
>
> So go back there and re-live those great times.
Why? To every thing there is a season.
>
Sav...@aol.com
Todd Lucas wrote:
> > The problem is that there is a strong bias towards post 1964 artists
> > who are perceived to have been hip with the FM rock crowd and the
> > hippie crowd, and against the artists that were mainly hit singles
> > makers. An artist like Tommy James & the Shondells was just as
> > significant, if not more so, than the Mamas & the Papas, for instance,
> > but TJ has never even been nominated while the less successful Mamas &
> > Papas have been inducted for years already.
>
> Well, I see your point here and agree with you. Like I said, I'd love
> to see someone like Paul Revere & the Raiders enshrined (though it's
> more hypothetical - I don't really care much about the rockhall or what
> it does). But that has its limits. What if Herman's Hermits were on
> the ballot? They had lots of hit singles and certainly werent known
> for their albums. Would you vote for them too?
It would depend on who else was on the ballot and how many names I
could vote for. I don't see the Hermits of being worthy of the hall,
but if I was to use your method of voting for what I liked, I'd
certainly vote for them before Patti Smith, the Stooges, the Sex
Pistols, and many other nominees from over the years. Since I
personally have little or no interest in lyrics and social impact of
these artists, I'd rather just hear a pleasant song that I like the
sound of, like "A Must To Avoid," or "Just A Little Bit Better" than
any song by any of the above artists that I mentioned.
> >
> > There's also the Atlantic problem, which gets in totally undeserving
> > candidates like Percy Sledge, and also pushes in borderline candidates
> > like the Rascals.
> >
> > What makes the Rascals any more significant than the DC5 or Tommy
> > James?
>
> Well, I'd argue that at least they were a better band than the DC5.
> But, in general I see your point. There should be no place for
> favortism in the nominating process.
It's not just in the nominating process, but also in the voting for
inductions.
PERCY SLEDGE is in the hall of fame. That's crazy.
There are easily ten solo soul artists from his era who are not yet in
and who should be in before Sledge, led by Jerry Butler.
Intheway
TB Sheets wrote:
> >
> > How many Grandmaster Flash songs do you think that Ertegun can name?
>
> More than I can.
> >
Ertegun may be a little bit far around the bend these days to test his
musical knowledge, but I can assure you from having discussed music
with him and having heard him expound at music conferences, that
Seymour Stein knows both the GMF and Sex Pistols catalog down to the
out-takes. He may not be the biggest fan of hip-hop or punk, but he
knows the music very well.
And no, I don't have newspaper accounts or movies of the conversations.
Bob Roman
> Bob Roman wrote:
> > To take it back to a baseball analogy, lets say someone at a bar wonders
why
> > Ted Williams was a great hitter. An old coach pipes in describing the
> > efficiency of Williams' swing. The first guy at this point would not
say,
> > "Do you actually think that even 1% of baseball fans care about the
> > mechanics of a swing?"
>
> Exactly. Nobody cares about what goes into making a song, or a hitter
> great. They just care about results.
But you can't to speak intelligently about why a ballplayer can hit if you
dismiss the importance of mechanics at the plate.
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
That's the point Mike. It's not what you as a trained musician see as a
subtle difference between the songs, it's what the 98% of people who
hear the songs think, and very few people are going to see "Because" as
any more lame than "If I Fell."
I'll even give you that "Because" is a bit more "square" in a sense,
but that's not going to be noticed by the people at the nursing home,
nor would they care if they did notice it, as long as both songs are
light enough not to offend anybody.
As a matter of fact, after the solo opening vocal part of "If I Fell,"
once they start singing together, there's very little difference
between the delivery of "If I Fell" and "Because."
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> > Nobody's denying any of that. You said...
> >
> > ""Please remember who Joe Tex recorded for. He's a shoo in. """
> >
> > And I just pointed out that recording for Dial doesn't make you any
> > shoo-in.
> >
> > Do you deny that when you said """Please remember who Joe Tex recorded
> > for. He's a shoo in. """ that you slipped up and were thinking that
> > he actually "recorded" for Atlantic?
>
> Aha.
>
> This is all about the Gator, the dance that didn't exist, isn't it?
What?
Furthest thing from my mind. I would have jumped on the Tex error nom
matter who posted it, and no matter when it occurred. You need to stop
thinking that everything is about you Fred. I'm sure you've seen me
correct hundreds of errors in these groups over the years, by dozens of
different posters.
If you'd stop the spin doctoring and just admit that you made a
mistake, this could end already.
Sav...@aol.com
You can like whatever you want. There are many more people, especially
your age, who think that the Dave Clark 5's music was great than who
think that the Sex Pistols music was great. They've sold many more
records, and have been played on the radio millions more times than the
Sex Pistols.
Sav...@aol.com
Who wants to speak about why a player can hit?
People want to speak about how well he hits, as compared to other
hitters. Only other would-be hitters want to know why a player can hit.
And only other musicians care about the technical aspects of what made
a song sound a certain way. The record buying public just hears a
record and decides whether or not they like it. No non-musician is
listening to a song and saying, "wow man, listen to that chord there
just before the sevond verse, I've never heard that before in that
way."
thuggi
"Intheway" <fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127488815.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Personally I was joshing. Of course the man knows these things. He lived,
ate and breathed the business his entire adult life.
>
thuggi
"Bob Roman" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11j879o...@news.supernews.com...
game goes on 24/7. All in the hopes of doing just a bit better. It's a
lifetime chase for most duffers.
Mechanics DO matter.