Ballroom Blitzed
New Member
It doesn't really mean anything!
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 409
|
Post by Ballroom Blitzed on Oct 20, 2013 14:09:45 GMT -5
I was just going to say, as a fan of rock music and somebody who doesn't really take the Hall of Fame very seriously, I would sooner see a dozen good pop stars get in than one Nickelback or Creed.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 20, 2013 14:19:59 GMT -5
imbondz, the Rock Hall is speaking to folk like you in its latest post. :) Glove Slap- I think his comments were coming from someone who thinks the Rock hall should just be about rock acts.
Being rock-oriented probably does work in an act's favor, if they're impactful enough, while non-rock acts could be impacted negatively (unless, again, there's an exception like Madonna, who was very "rock and roll" in how she approached her work).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2013 15:20:27 GMT -5
^I know- and apparently I know a lot about broken records. I don't know why some continue to think it's just about rock music. Barbra Streisand, Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, Janet Jackson and other Pulse favorites are not in but Nirvana and GNR will get in immediately? Why do you think that is then? I am sure all here would say that the Pulse Faves had more of an impact on popular music (number one hits, top 40 hits, etc.) than GNR but what about rock?
Recognition may still happen but I think their genre is holding them up. This one of my biggest pet peeves with the industry right now. These days numbers equate to impact, but back in the day, an act like GN'R could have a few top 10's and one number one, and still have the goods to become incredibly successful. Nowadays, videos, albums, live performances, etc. don't really have that massive standalone impact that they used to. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but it seems to be the RIRHOF should be purely about rock music, and those artists who made the genre what it was. Yes, people like Madonna have had an enormous impact on music in general, but if it's about rewarding all artists, why not have a separate "hall" or category for that or something similar.
|
|
MikeCheck12
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,880
|
Post by MikeCheck12 on Oct 20, 2013 17:19:48 GMT -5
^Why? When "Rock & Roll" encompasses all musical genres?
Broken record...skip....broken record.....skip.......
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2013 17:36:25 GMT -5
^Why? When "Rock & Roll" encompasses all musical genres? Broken record...skip....broken record.....skip....... Anxiously awaiting Luciano Pavarotti's nomination to the Rock Hall
|
|
MikeCheck12
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,880
|
Post by MikeCheck12 on Oct 20, 2013 17:47:46 GMT -5
:)
|
|
Ballroom Blitzed
New Member
It doesn't really mean anything!
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 409
|
Post by Ballroom Blitzed on Oct 20, 2013 18:47:01 GMT -5
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but it seems to be the RIRHOF should be purely about rock music, and those artists who made the genre what it was. Yes, people like Madonna have had an enormous impact on music in general, but if it's about rewarding all artists, why not have a separate "hall" or category for that or something similar. I agree that it should have been that way, but it's not, so the best option is to nominate the best possible artists from a range of genres. As I mentioned above, it would be better to nominate and induct good non-rock acts than terrible rock bands. I mean, inducting Madonna or Michael Jackson doesn't necessarily have an adverse impact ipon its credibility (now, keep in mind that acknowleding the credibility of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a bit like acknowldging the credibility of Ted Cruz as a politician), in my mind. Inducting post-grunge bottom-feeders like Hinder, Saving Abel or Fuel, on the other hand...
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,486
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Oct 20, 2013 22:10:00 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind though is that after the early 90s, "rock" gradually stopped being seen as the main music of mainstream youth as Hip-Hop/Urban, and now EDM have taken over. Eventually, their place will have to be adressed. A lot of the acts that are in, or from those circles, are currently seen as music for dads and moms. Not just because of the times, but just because of the type of bands they are. Bands like Zeppelin, CCR, GnR, Queen etc., for all their respect and success appear extremely old school and dated now in how they were presented and operated. Much moreso than they might have appeared if one looked back at the 70s and 80s from the mid-90s. The types of "rock" that young people are into nowdays (which are more inline with indie/DIY movements) is different from the larger than life acts from bygone eras. I think it's best for the HOF to base its inductions on who actually impacted the progression of popular music, rather than just concentrating on "dadrock" acts.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 21, 2013 7:10:19 GMT -5
I Need A..., I think it's safe to say that Creed and Nickelback won't be immediately considered when they become eligible. :)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 8:34:35 GMT -5
Creed and Nickelback will have better chances than Barbra Streisand or Whitney Houston
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Oct 21, 2013 9:53:14 GMT -5
Creed and Nickelback will have better chances than Barbra Streisand or Whitney Houston You just love to cut me like a knife, don't you? ;)
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 21, 2013 9:56:45 GMT -5
I am inclined to agree about Streisand (though she's an undeniable legend), but not quite as much about Whitney Houston. Some thought that her passing would result in a nod, but it hasn't, so I do think an induction any time soon will not be easy.
Creed and Nickelback are critically reviled pretty much- I'll say that Bon Jovi stands a better shot than those two.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,486
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Oct 21, 2013 10:01:21 GMT -5
Bon Jovi has endured far far longer than most critics thought they would. I think their longevity will eventually get them in. Journey is another act whose endurance may eventually score them a shot I think. I don't think those two acts were ever quite as hated as Creed and Nickelback. They were seen as cheesy yes, but the critical hatred of them didn't stay red hot for as long as it has with the other two.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 21, 2013 10:11:59 GMT -5
^I'd agree with that. Bon Jovi's lack of a nomination this year (after a previous nod), though, proves that even it won't get in easy.
However, an act can get in just like that in some cases, after years and years without a single nomination (Neil Diamond, Heart, etc.)
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,593
|
Post by imbondz on Oct 21, 2013 15:31:55 GMT -5
Bon Jovi could be the only 80's hair band that gets in. They've written some pretty great songs and are deserving IMO.
Creed and Nickelback will never get in. Not a chance
|
|
Ballroom Blitzed
New Member
It doesn't really mean anything!
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 409
|
Post by Ballroom Blitzed on Oct 21, 2013 16:26:19 GMT -5
Bon Jovi could be the only 80's hair band that gets in. They've written some pretty great songs and are deserving IMO. Possibly Def Leppard, but they're an outside chance at best.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,643
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 21, 2013 20:44:01 GMT -5
Anybody upset about Nirvana getting in on their first year probably doesn't listen to rock. No one since Nirvana has made a bigger impact on the genre as a whole. It's laughable to think otherwise. I don't think it's laughable to think otherwise. "Grunge" really only lasted a few years. Green Day, for instance, was influencing music even after grunge died out. Not only did we see that pop/punk revival with Blink 182, Sum 41, etc. but then Green Day also influenced some artists with the concept of American Idiot (see My Chemical Romance) and even ended up on Broadway.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,643
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 21, 2013 20:50:09 GMT -5
I don't really see why Streisand would be considered. Even with the broad descriptions of Rock, her career has never really been in that field aside from some exceptions. Her main focus was a more broadway setting. Streisand had mainstream hits in the 60s and 70s, not to mention having a top 10 hit in the 90s. Didn't she have a #1 album a few years ago? She was never just Broadway, so I am not sure what your comment is about. She was a huge influence on singers like Celine Dion, too. Anyway, I am not saying she is "Rock," I am saying I don't see how Gladys Knight, Public Enemy and Linda Ronstadt are considered "rock" but Streisand is not. The definition seems way too vague.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,643
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 21, 2013 20:53:57 GMT -5
It's like a broken record. "Rock & Roll" encompasses all musical genres. Period. ^I know- and apparently I know a lot about broken records. I don't know why some continue to think it's just about rock music. Except that people say someone like Barbra Streisand hasn't gotten in because she isn't "Rock." If the Hall definition encompasses all genres, great, but then Streisand, Dolly Parton, etc. should be getting in. If the Hall definition is strictly rock music that's fine, too, but then acts like Gladys Night and Public Enemy shouldn't be in. The point is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of real definition.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 20:56:52 GMT -5
^Why? When "Rock & Roll" encompasses all musical genres? Broken record...skip....broken record.....skip....... Anxiously awaiting Luciano Pavarotti's nomination to the Rock Hall Since there is a push in this thread to redefine 'rock' to mean any and all genres, this is my first choice for induction ;)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 21:00:39 GMT -5
Seriously though, look at the trends. Being an 'undeniable legend' in movies and musicals and having hit albums and top 40 hits and so forth does not punch an automatic ticket to the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame. With a few notable exceptions, non-rock acts (Madonna, ABBA, etc) tend to gain acceptance much slower (see Neil Diamond)
Barbra Streisand could eventually get in, but the reason she isn't would have to be her musical style does not lean towards rock
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 21, 2013 21:02:43 GMT -5
The Hall may look at someone like Streisand as not fitting the "rock-and-roll" mold, too "wishy-washy," if that makes sense.
Acts who are pure country are few and far between in the Rock Hall. I don't know if I posted it, but maybe the Rock hall sees that as such a genre that's so distant from rock/pop/R&B, etc. Those kinds of genre songs can co-exist at some radio formats, for instance- but, unless a country act releases a "pop mix," country doesn't get played at top 40 radio.
Elvis, Brenda Lee and Johnny Cash are in both the Rock Hall and Country Hall. Dolly Parton was inducted into the Country Hall in 1999, so the Rock Hall may see that as sufficient. Who knows what it thinks as far as country goes. Someone should inquire.
As for pop- Madonna was a shoo-in in her first year of eligibility; ABBA took longer, but its induction was not a surprise- same for the Bee Gees.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 21:08:31 GMT -5
There is a lot of overlap between 50-60s country and 50-60s rock so those names make sense
Lots of rock artists that followed were influenced by them
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 21:33:50 GMT -5
The Hall may look at someone like Streisand as not fitting the "rock-and-roll" mold, too "wishy-washy," if that makes sense. Acts who are pure country are few and far between in the Rock Hall. I don't know if I posted it, but maybe the Rock hall sees that as such a genre that's so distant from rock/pop/R&B, etc. Those kinds of genre songs can co-exist at some radio formats, for instance- but, unless a country act releases a "pop mix," country doesn't get played at top 40 radio. Elvis, Brenda Lee and Johnny Cash are in both the Rock Hall and Country Hall. Dolly Parton was inducted into the Country Hall in 1999, so the Rock Hall may see that as sufficient. Who knows what it thinks as far as country goes. Someone should inquire. As for pop- Madonna was a shoo-in in her first year of eligibility; ABBA took longer, but its induction was not a surprise- same for the Bee Gees. But why was Madonna such a shoo in? Her music isn't very "rock" either IMO.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,643
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 21, 2013 21:38:57 GMT -5
Barbra Streisand could eventually get in, but the reason she isn't would have to be her musical style does not lean towards rock I think we all get that. The point is that there are acts in the HOF whose musical style doesn't lean toward rock either, yet they are still in. So, where's the line?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 21:40:23 GMT -5
Some country acts for example are in because rock acts that followed were influenced by them. Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 21:46:18 GMT -5
What defines 'rock' may or may not change over time but regardless of hits, #1 albums, etc. If you are not a rock act (again if HG is reading this - and your name is not Madonna - ;) ) you are not going to jump to the head of the line.
The rock acts are going to be favored over the non rock acts. The pop artists on the list this year have been around a lot longer than 25 years
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,486
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Oct 21, 2013 21:58:36 GMT -5
I don't really see why Streisand would be considered. Even with the broad descriptions of Rock, her career has never really been in that field aside from some exceptions. Her main focus was a more broadway setting. Streisand had mainstream hits in the 60s and 70s, not to mention having a top 10 hit in the 90s. Didn't she have a #1 album a few years ago? She was never just Broadway, so I am not sure what your comment is about. She was a huge influence on singers like Celine Dion, too. Anyway, I am not saying she is "Rock," I am saying I don't see how Gladys Knight, Public Enemy and Linda Ronstadt are considered "rock" but Streisand is not. The definition seems way too vague. I don't see how her having top 10 hits in the 90s or a #1 album a few years ago, or even this year, has anything to do with this. She's not really a contemporary music artist aside from the number of hits she had in the 70s (I believe she only had People in the 60s be a hit, which was from a musical) and very early 80s (those were with the Bee Gees sound). Her main sphere of influence or concentration has not been popular music. It's been in theater, film, broadway, television, etc., but not really the sphere in which this focuses. Gladys Knight and Public Enemy have had more of a role in shaping contemporary popular music than Streisand. Anybody upset about Nirvana getting in on their first year probably doesn't listen to rock. No one since Nirvana has made a bigger impact on the genre as a whole. It's laughable to think otherwise. I don't think it's laughable to think otherwise. "Grunge" really only lasted a few years. Green Day, for instance, was influencing music even after grunge died out. Not only did we see that pop/punk revival with Blink 182, Sum 41, etc. but then Green Day also influenced some artists with the concept of American Idiot (see My Chemical Romance) and even ended up on Broadway. Green Day will likely get in at some point though, but their impact wasn't as big as Nirvana's. Or, a more accurate saying would be, the alt. revolution that Nirvana is most associated with. That revolution was why an act like Green Day could break through a bit later. Also, the distorted sound of Grunge, or that was associated with Seattle, was continued in the Post-grunge type acts like Bush, Creed, Nickelback, Daughtry, etc. for better or worse. The Grunge era lasted a few years yes, but the alt. rock revolution that it ushered in really did change the industry itself in some ways. You can see parts of it today and in the past decade in the indie rock circles. It is why really larger than life acts such as Gnr & Def Leppard are seen as incompatible with the contemporary music scene afterwards to this day.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,643
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 21, 2013 22:37:36 GMT -5
I don't see how her having top 10 hits in the 90s or a #1 album a few years ago, or even this year, has anything to do with this. She's not really a contemporary music artist aside from the number of hits she had in the 70s (I believe she only had People in the 60s be a hit, which was from a musical) and very early 80s (those were with the Bee Gees sound). Her main sphere of influence or concentration has not been popular music. It's been in theater, film, broadway, television, etc., but not really the sphere in which this focuses. Gladys Knight and Public Enemy have had more of a role in shaping contemporary popular music than Streisand. Yeah the 70s were probably her biggest period commercially, but she had #1 and Grammy-winning albums in the 60s. And even if some of that was Broadway-related, that was part of the music climate at the time. Back then jazz and Broadway were more relevant in music culture than now. Broadway cast albums actually used to sell well. And, really, Streisand's ability to do well in Broadway, mainstream music, and film is something we still see today; it's common for people to try and become established in more than one thing. In what way did Gladys Knight help shape contemporary popular music? How long was she relevant? By the way, I am not trying to knock Gladys Night; I love her. I just don't see where she has impacted music more than Streisand. Frank Sinatra isn't in the HOF either is he? I think people give Nirvana way too much credit for that, though. Acts like R.E.M. and Red Hot Chili Peppers were "alt" acts having mainstream success before Nirvana hit. I know both of those acts are in the HOF, I am just saying I think Nirvana gets the bulk of the credit when other acts were just as important.
|
|
swim
New Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 408
|
Post by swim on Oct 21, 2013 22:42:09 GMT -5
Anybody upset about Nirvana getting in on their first year probably doesn't listen to rock. No one since Nirvana has made a bigger impact on the genre as a whole. It's laughable to think otherwise. I don't think it's laughable to think otherwise. "Grunge" really only lasted a few years. Green Day, for instance, was influencing music even after grunge died out. Not only did we see that pop/punk revival with Blink 182, Sum 41, etc. but then Green Day also influenced some artists with the concept of American Idiot (see My Chemical Romance) and even ended up on Broadway. "Grunge" may have only lasted a few years but there are plenty of elements of it in mainstream rock today. Just turn on rock radio. You don't even have to know the name of the artist to recognize they were influenced by Nirvana. Yes, there have obviously been other rock sounds since Nirvana, but no one has been as much of a game changer since them. I do think Green Day is in. They're a personal favorite of mine and while they didn't necessarily do anything new they have impacted and paved the way for success of many bands to follow. I think Green Day stands a chance at getting inducted next year on their first shot. They impacted the bands you listed above, plus many more. Add in two classic albums, setting stadium attendance records, and surprisingly broad appeal (just go to one of their shows...) and they have a great shot. If they get nominated, I think they'll easily get in on their first go.
|
|