I agree.. the categories would create more issues than they are worth. But I do feel that at this point, they should really consider dropping the 'rock n roll' part of the name since it has gone way beyond that.
I agree.. the categories would create more issues than they are worth. But I do feel that at this point, they should really consider dropping the 'rock n roll' part of the name since it has gone way beyond that.
My mind is Tiffany twisted
Music Hall Of Fame. Enough said!!
He sings it high, he plays it low
Ok then I would not vote for the Replacements. I think HD have just one song in. Not sure how that works.
But isn't there a Country Music Hall of Fame that Rusty Young was inducted in? So are country artists included in the general Rock and Roll one? If there's a Country one, why not a Disco one?
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2013...called-it.html
Yeah - The last sentence that I bolded is why I think we should keep it as it is. Many genres, including country, bluegrass, r&b, and jazz already have their own HOFs so I think there should be one for r&r as well. I guess some of the genres that are now under the r&r umbrella could branch off and form their own HOF. In addition some genres don't have their own HOF, but they do have museums dedicated to their style and influential artists, such as Motown and the Rock and Soul Museum in Memphis that I recently visited.
And I totally agree that Linda's induction is long overdue, as are some other acts. I'm not sure what the nomination criteria is, but I guess the challenge is to separate the relevant and influential artists from the one or two hit wonders. If everyone gets in, it dilutes the significance, IMHO. But, as in most things, there are always borderline cases where there are good arguments both for and against certain artists.
"People don't run out of dreams: People just run out of time ..."
Glenn Frey 11/06/1948 - 01/18/2016
Johnny Cash is in the R&R hall of fame and most people consider him to be country
People listen with their eyes. When KISS started, people said to them "you have great songs, but take off that makeup". When they became well known for the makeup, people decided that their music sucks.
It is possible to have great songs and a great show at the same time, folks. It really is. Having said that, although Paul is a great rhythm player, he's often sloppy live, because he keeps running and jumping and doesn't care that much about the playing. Gene plays well live. Bruce Kulick, who's a virtuoso player, said once that he doesn't remember Gene ever making a mistake (playingwise) live in all the years Bruce was with KISS.
There's a great quote from Steve Van Zandt in the book KISS - Behind the Mask. He never paid attention to KISS because of the "cartoon" thing. He finally went to see them in the mid-90's - during the reunion tour - and was "really really shocked. It was one great song after the next, nothing but terrific songs".
I can't blame people who say KISS's music sucks - and mention the show aspect at the same time - for being prejudiced. It's the same thing as a KISS fan insisting without listening to the albums that Spice Girls has never recorded a good song ("They dance, so their music must suck"). It is possible to love both, by the way. I do!
KISS influencing other people? Hard to say. I do remember Nikki Sixx saying that he wasn't influenced by their theatrics, but by their songwriting. I have heard many times that somebody started to play because of KISS or one of its members. But I don't think that's the same thing as "influencing". It's more like giving the initial spark to pick up an instrument.
Last edited by chaim; 10-30-2013 at 08:09 AM.
The list for the 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees are in and Linda is going to be inducted along with Nirvana, Kiss, Peter Garbriel, Hall & Oates and Cat Stevens.
I had 5 out of 6 right. I only picked 5.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...class-20131216