This years potential Rock Hall Nominees are...

Cafe Society
1

Rolling Stone magazine reported the following are nominated for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next year:

[ul]
[li]Madonna[/li][li]Beastie Boys[/li][li]Afrika Bambaataa[/li][li]John Mellencamp[/li][li]Donna Summers[/li][li]Leonard Cohen [/li][li]Chic[/li][li]The Dave Clark Five[/li][li]The Ventures[/li][/ul]

Seems once again that the hall has missed once again some big holes (KISS, Rush, Genesis, Devo), but I find the Beastie Boys interesting and frankly suprising nomination. Leonard Cohen and Donna Summers on the other hand? :dubious: :confused: Chic may make it in more for Nile Rodgers work than anything else I will guess. DC5, while I liked their music, always seemed to be the Beatles also-ran.

2

Only three of them are even rock n roll.

It’s becoming increasingly irrelevant, if that’s even possible.

3

What’s the selection critera again?

4

I’ll never understand why Warren Zevon cannot get a nod.
Someone here said something to the effect that he was not influential enough.
To me, his creativity and originality were–are–inspirational.
Edited: a snide remark about the Hall of Fame.

5

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should have been sued long ago by Alan Freed’s heirs. They (the HOF) won’t be happy until every musician since 1980 is in and the original R & R’ers are all forgotten.

6

Beastie Boys are an odd one. Sorry, I don’t rate them at all and think a lot of their stuff is very juvenille.

Still, I think the HOF is as other poster’s mentioned. worthless.

7

It is simply a coffin for dinosaurs; it’s actually more of an honor not to be nominated–unless you’re Rush or Genesis, one of the few bands who would actually benefit from this kind of pompous irrelevancy.

8

The British one was done much more appropriately.

Reportage from my native land: On the Mother Ship, no one is wetting their pants over Madonna’s nom, believe me. We’re all like; “Meh. When’s the new album coming out, again?”

I mean, really, once you get to a certain point, the novelty just wears off.

9

First, have you doubters ever been to the actual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? It’s one of the best museums in America, well arranged and sheer fun throughout.

Second, I have a feeling that most of you are young enough that you weren’t around when rock and roll was the most hated music in America. If you lived through that era to see rock’s triumph as an art form, what you really despise is the way that kids today are destroying something precious that they’ve been brought up to take for granted rather than the institution that celebrates the history of the form.

Third, if you really celebrated rock you’d understand that rock is the ultimate bastard form. It comes from Tin Pan Alley and country & western and rhythm & blues and folk and pop and Broadway and soul and jazz and classical and zydeco and salsa and every other music form you can think of. It’s the great Ooze, absorbing all it touches and making that part of itself. That’s always been rock’s strength. It’s all rock, and saying that rap or folk or disco artists aren’t part of rock is to miss the point of rock’s history as badly as a cartoon batter corkscrewing himself into the ground after missing a high hard one.

10

Seems like the The Dave Clark Five are nominated every year. I think.

11

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
First, have you doubters ever been to the actual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? It’s one of the best museums in America, well arranged and sheer fun throughout.

Second, I have a feeling that most of you are young enough that you weren’t around when rock and roll was the most hated music in America. If you lived through that era to see rock’s triumph as an art form, what you really despise is the way that kids today are destroying something precious that they’ve been brought up to take for granted rather than the institution that celebrates the history of the form.

Third, if you really celebrated rock you’d understand that rock is the ultimate bastard form. It comes from Tin Pan Alley and country & western and rhythm & blues and folk and pop and Broadway and soul and jazz and classical and zydeco and salsa and every other music form you can think of. It’s the great Ooze, absorbing all it touches and making that part of itself. That’s always been rock’s strength. It’s all rock, and saying that rap or folk or disco artists aren’t part of rock is to miss the point of rock’s history as badly as a cartoon batter corkscrewing himself into the ground after missing a high hard one.
[/QUOTE]

No, more like bubblegum/rap/folk/disco rode the coattails of rock n roll when it was convenient to do so. It’s definitely true that rock n roll was influenced by many forms of music, and continues to be. Well, then let’s look at the nominees in the light of whether they actually bring something to the rock n roll table, and I mean have been an influence on rock n roll…now this is just MstupidHO and off the top of my head:

Madonna - She got farther, and likely helped more women get farther in the process - while she isn’t “rock n roll”, I wouldn’t begrudge her place in the HOF

Beastie Boys - They’ve done some good things, some not so good things, and they do actually incorporate quite a bit of rock n roll in their sound. I’m not sure how influential they actually were. Maybe they helped rockers incorporate rap into their music. In other words, perhaps they’re in some way responsible for the existence of Limp Bizkit…bzzzzzzzzzt! Not this time…maybe in an even weaker year…

Afrika Bambaataa - Very influential to hip hop; whether that in turn influenced rock n roll is likely, but debateable; I’m OK with him, maybe.

John Mellencamp - Definitely rock n roll…very popular, lots of hits, some important songs, I think he’s pretty solid, but I’m not sure if he’s been all that influential or brought anything new to the table. I’m OK with him, not overly enthusiastic, though.

Donna Summers - Well, not rock n roll, but definitely lots of hits and five grammys…did she influence rock n roll? Meh.

Leonard Cohen - Folkie, but influential to a lot of rock n rollers. I’m ok with him, but he’s not really rock n roll, nor was he all that popular, not that that’s a big deal with me.

Chic - Good players, some hits, but meh. I don’t see them as a terribly compelling candidate, but they’ve been nominated like every year lately, so since this is kind of a weak year…eh…

The Dave Clark Five - They are certainly rock n roll. They were mostly considered a second tier band, but that’s not difficult since the first tier of their day contained the like of the Beatles, the Stones, The Kinks, et al. However, I think they were influential in they had a very bottom heavy sound with pretty loud drums for their day, and this soon became a staple of the rock sound. I’m ok with them.

The Ventures - Definitely rock n roll. Influential and immediately recognizable sound. They’re only problem is the no vocals=no identifiable pop star thing. I’m fine with them, but not a slam-dunk.

12

Well done, **An Arky **- I agree on all counts.

13

Gotta ding you on this one, Xap.

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
First, have you doubters ever been to the actual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? It’s one of the best museums in America, well arranged and sheer fun throughout.
[/quote]

Been. Thought it was pointless, prententious, and oversold - which, admittedly, is a big part of what Rock was about. It seemed more about perception than anything else and it, frankly, disgusted me.

I’m not, though I’m younger than you. And the kids today should be destroying it. Even considering Rock and Roll as as ‘art’ form is pushing it past what it should be: folk music for the latter half of the 20th century. It should, in all cases, reflect the immediate time it’s in. If they’re destroying it then it needs to be destroyed. But it’s more likely that if you feel that it’s being destroyed then you’re out of touch with what works today.

Nothing gives me goose bumps more than some 15 year old wearing a Led Zeppelin shirt they bought at Wal-Mart. Ew. Look forward, not back.

Or, to quote Mike Watt (ex of the Minutemen):

The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70s.
It’s not reality.
Just someone else’s sentimentality.
It won’t work for you!

Here I think you’re spot on. But note that it’s not just Rock and Roll that does that. The basis of English-speaking civilization is that. English borrows (steals, mugs) other languages and adapts them to it. The same is true of American culture. If we run into a food, event, toy, process that we think is cool then we’ll adapt it to our own purposes and in our own time. That sort of cultural theft/borrowing is almost required by a nation made up of so many cultures and peoples.

In summary: The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sucks ass and is to be avoided. Better to go to the Great Lakes Science Center next door. You’ll have more fun.

Rock and Roll, however, can still be fun and irreverent and vital and stupid. That’s part of what it is at a fundamental level.

14

[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Rock and Roll, however, can still be fun and irreverent and vital and stupid. That’s part of what it is at a fundamental level.
[/QUOTE]

It can be. It doesn’t have to be. There are too many people who think stupid is fundamental. It isn’t. Leonard Cohen isn’t stupid. (He’s not even folk. Listen to his album and song titled “The Future.”)

I don’t understand what defending themselves against the 70s means. If that means ignoring it, or any other earlier time period, you’re dead wrong. The greats of early rock listened to all the earlier music, absorbed the best pieces of it, stomped all over the worst pieces of it, and made it into something wholly new. Why shouldn’t today’s bands be doing exactly the same thing?

I generally agree with An Arky’s ratings, but that’s totally irrelevant. It’s nice when they get the honorees “right,” but it doesn’t mean anything more if they don’t than an Oscar going to a movie like Gladiator. Having the Oscars still celebrates movies even when the nominees are stupid and the winners worse. Celebrating the best of rock history is good just in the attempt. Good enough for me, anyway.

15

Madonna: Ground-breaking, over a couple of decades. Deserves it. She’s reinvented herself, and her music, and her style, more than once.

Beastie Boys: Musically relevant, and did some original stuff. Not a bad choice.

Afrika Bambaataa: Hardly the best choice for the hip-hop nominee, but not too bad.

John Mellencamp: Solid Midwestern rocker, and enough decades behind him that he probably deserves it. Made some good, true rock songs, and he deserves credit for that.

Donna Summers: Nice singer, and arguably one of the more influential performers of the disco era.

Leonard Cohen: Why he’s up, I’m not sure.

Chic: Again, not sure why.

The Dave Clark Five: They’re still alive?

The Ventures: A definite slam-dunk. They helped define one of the sounds of rock-n-roll. (3 chords)

16

[QUOTE=Caprese]
I’ll never understand why Warren Zevon cannot get a nod.
Someone here said something to the effect that he was not influential enough.
To me, his creativity and originality were–are–inspirational.
Edited: a snide remark about the Hall of Fame.
[/QUOTE]

Zevon not influential enough? He influenced half of the LA music scene. He’s the guy that put the edge in the LA music. He’s been mentioned as an influence by people like Dylan and Springsteen.

Zevon hasn’t even made it into the songwriter’s hall of fame. How is that possible?

I think the answer may be Zevon himself. Having just finished his biography, it’s pretty clear that he worked hard to alienate just about everyone in the music business. He spent years as a hard drinking, hard living, take-no-prisoners guy on a lengthy self-destructive binge. The only reason he kept a cadre of faithful friends was that through all the crap and damage he was still a genius, and that’s attractive to people. But he certainly pissed off a lot of the movers and shakers, and his career paid a price for that.