Future Rock Hall predicts the 2007
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

Update: The official 2007 Rock Hall Nominees have been announced.

Future Rock Legends forecasts which of today's artists will be the next generation's Rock & Roll Hall of Famers by using a combination of historically predictive criteria, user votes, and nomination patterns. The official 2007 nominations are determined by the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation's 70-member nominating committee and typically are finalized in mid-September.

Future Rock Legends predicts the following artists will be on the 2007 ballot. The "Current Induction Chances" represent the artist's odds of ever being inducted into the Hall of Fame, as calculated by Future Rock Legends and its users.
  • Van Halen - Van Halen was one of the most influential bands of the 1980's, selling tens of millions of albums, and seamlessly surviving the replacement of front-man David Lee Roth with Sammy Hagar.
    Current Induction Chances: 80%

  • Patti Smith - After having been nominated each of the last six years, Smith is likely to get the well earned nod once again.
    Current Induction Chances: 74%

  • KISS - Members of the KISS Army recently protested outside the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland to draw attention to the glaring omission of a truly iconic band.
    Current Induction Chances: 59%

  • Grandmaster Flash - The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has been flirting with the idea of inducting rappers since first nominating Grandmaster Flash two years ago. He will likely be the first rapper inducted into the Hall, paving the way for Run DMC and the Beastie Boys in the coming years.
    Current Induction Chances: 60%

  • The Cure - One of the most enduring artists of the 1980's, the Cure gave birth to goth rock and became an important influence for today's emo bands.
    Current Induction Chances: 68%

  • Tom Waits - Waits is the most distinctive voice in bar room blues. Though he is adored by critics, he has thus far been ignored by the Rock Hall nominating committee. He has been eligible since 1998.
    Current Induction Chances: 72%

  • John Mellencamp - There are few artists who have captured Americana in song as well as John Mellencamp. After having been nominated in 2004 and 2006, he will likely be recognized again this year and join the ranks of Bruce Springsteen and Bob Seger in the Rock Hall.
    Current Induction Chances: 62%

  • The Stooges - Iggy Pop and company have been nominated four times since 1998, including each of the last three years. The Stooges were a band ahead of its time, like the Velvet Underground, who were best understood after their career ended.
    Current Induction Chances: 69%

  • Joy Division - The first post-punk band had a short career, ending after lead singer Ian Curtis committed suicide in 1980, but their music has continued to shape the sound of modern rock. In 2002, NME named "Love Will Tear Us Apart" the best single of all time.
    Current Induction Chances: 68%

  • Brian Eno - Eno's production credits alone are enough to get him inducted, but add to that his work with seminal art rock band Roxy Music, and he becomes close to a sure thing.
    Current Induction Chances: 67%

  • Deep Purple - Much more than "Smoke on the Water", Deep Purple is considered to be one of the pioneers of heavy metal music. Black Sabbath's opened the Rock Hall's doors to metal with their induction in 2006, which has boosted Deep Purple's chances to get its first nomination this year.
    Current Induction Chances: 63%

  • New York Dolls - The Dolls' long and varied career had a major influence on the 1970's New York punk rock scene. They have been nominated once before, in 2001.
    Current Induction Chances: 55%

  • MC5 - The "Motor City Five" paved the way for Rock Hall of Famers the Clash and the Sex Pistols, and their signature sound can be heard in today's biggest bands.
    Current Induction Chances: 55%

  • Cheap Trick - Rockford's finest export has had many memorable hits (such as "I Want You To Want Me") throughout its 30-year career. They are still releasing new albums and playing sold-out shows.
    Current Induction Chances: 61%

  • The Replacements - The Replacements' high energy blend of punk and alternative rock earned them legions of devoted fans. This is the first year they are eligible to be nominated for the Rock Hall.
    Current Induction Chances: 59%

  • Update: R.E.M. is eligible this year as well (based on the release of "Radio Free Europe" in 1981), and they will undoubtedly be nominated. [9/18/06]
    Current Induction Chances: 90%
The Rock Hall voting committee will receive their official ballots in September, and three months later, the winners will be announced. The 2007 inductees will then be honored at the annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Ceremony in March of next year. Artists are eligible for the Rock Hall 25 years after releasing their first record (anyone with a record before 1982).

This site is not affiliated in any way with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation.


160 comments so far (post your own)

David Gates and Bread. This group wanted to be a rock band, but ended up becoming the inventors of the soft rock sound. Friction between Gates, and James Griffin destroyed this Band. The other main factor was that Rolling Stone Magazine did not like them according to Gates. Gates work with Chuck Barry and other muscians long before Rolling Stone became a magazine. If there was a great Satan Rolling Stone should be considered.

Posted by warren bishop on Wednesday, 08.30.06 @ 01:29am

Since when is creating soft-rock something to be proud of?

Now, if this was me voting, and this was the ballot I was given, my vote would probably go Patti Smith, Tom Waits, The Replacements, MC5, John Mellencamp, and then Tom Waits again just to make sure.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 08.30.06 @ 19:24pm

Stooges, MC5, Joy Division, Patti Smith, John Mellencamp.

Van Halen will twist in penance for a while in retaliation for awful DLR radio show this year.

Tom Waits is unimpeachably cool, but 2009 will be his time, time... time.

GM Flash deserves it, but have we reached the tipping point...

Posted by Rick on Wednesday, 08.30.06 @ 20:38pm

Why no mention of Rush or Yes?

Posted by Elwood on Wednesday, 08.30.06 @ 22:30pm

Because the hall is biased against progressive for some odd reason, and those bands aren't that good anyway.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 08.30.06 @ 22:50pm

rem & duran duran.

i sent in a 300 sig petition in support of duran duran's induction in june

Posted by martin on Thursday, 08.31.06 @ 09:33am

I have too many comments about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but I will say this. The Hall of Fame continually neglects some of the most influental groups in all genre's It always pisses me off when I see the forerunners of a genre like "The New York Dolls" be cast aside only to induct bands that have admitingly wouldn't be where they are without them ie: "The Clash" (Who I LOVE) and "The Sex Pistols" (Who think they started Punk): insert joke here, but you also take Singer sonwriter like Tom Waits or Bands that started "New Wave" music like "The Cars" and although I am not a huge fan even "Van Halen" has a place in my opinion there. I truly hope the Hall gets a clue when it comes to induction of bands that not only deserve to be there, but also changed the face of their respective genre's, or they could just induct "Eric Clapton" again (Love him as well) but please see my point with an open mind. In closing I have two things to say 1. Thank You Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for keeping "Kiss" out of the Hall. 2. Stevie Ray Vaughn better get in on his 1st try or there really is something wrong with the Hall and it needs a injection of lifeblood..

Posted by Carney on Friday, 09.1.06 @ 09:34am

Carney, I generally agree with you, but I think I have to point out that The Cars didn't invent New Wave at all. That credit should go almost exclusively to Brian Eno, who is another shocking victim of neglect by the Hall.

Posted by Kit on Friday, 09.1.06 @ 13:34pm

It infuriates me when the Metal and Hard Rock genre does not get the respect it truly deserves. It took them forever to finally induct Black Sabbath. why is that? if the Hall of Fame inducts innovators of rock. Black Sabbath did this by introducing and creating a new genre of rock, Metal. I think with this introduction we will see the other greats of rock and metal such as: Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Slayer, and KISS. In fact of the bands I listed on top the one who truly deserves the credit and respect is Judas Priest due to their influence of the Metal genre. In fact, it was Priest that brought a resurgence to metal while punk was taking the world by storm and it was them who actually purify the metal genre and brought it to its fundamental roots. KISS brought the spectacle in rock and was a very big phenomenon around the nation. Slayer brought the new wave of metal called thrash, while glam rock and new wave was popular in the nation. Obviously it wasnt just Slayer it was also Megadeth and Metallica. However, in the process Slayer also gave birth and influence the black metal genre. Iron Maiden like Judas Priest repopularized the Metal genre. They also created one of the most iconic mascots in rocks history, Eddie. Not to mention that they've had great music over the years and have given us many rock anthems. So the Hall of Fame can run and deny the big influences of the Metal genre, but in the end they are going to accept it and METAL will prevail.

Posted by hellspawn007 on Saturday, 09.2.06 @ 15:15pm

KISS did not bring the spectacle into Rock. THat is a laughably stupid thing to say. Rock has been about spectacle almost from the beginning, and the whole glam thing was already being done much more tastefully by many, including David Bowie, Mott The Hoople, T-Rex and Slade. Kiss contributes nothing to rock what-so-freaking-ever.

I don't know very much about metal, so I'll keep my mouth shut other than to say Deep Purple and Rainbow should get in before anyone else from that genre, and just remind you that relatively speaking, Metal's been treated okay by the Hall. If you want a real example of subgenre heartbreak brought on by the hall, check with your local Prog-head.

Posted by Kit on Saturday, 09.2.06 @ 17:38pm

Always remember what Rock n' Roll is when it comes to nominations.

I vote to induct "Those Darn Beavers".

If that ain't Rock n' Roll then what is?

"TD Beavers" Rock!

Posted by Steve Wardrip on Sunday, 09.3.06 @ 19:12pm

How about Journey, Ted Nugent, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Rush, Yes... etc, etc. There's lots of musicians/bands that deserve to be in the R-n-R HOF, but if ever they've peeved the Rolling Stone editor, or he/she Jann Weiner just doesn't appreciate their music, they don't stand a chance.

Posted by Skidaddy, Esq. on Tuesday, 09.5.06 @ 10:39am

All the bands you listed are terrible.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 09.5.06 @ 11:33am

The standard for the R&R HOF should be pretty easy. If people are still listening to these acts after 25 years and still like them, they should be in. Rock and Roll is anti-elitest at it's very core. That is why Kiss, Styx, REO, Rush, Yes and a multitude of other groups belong. People still listen to them and go to their concerts.

This isn't Mozart or Beethoven, it is music for the masses. Sorry to those R&R snobs who feel that it is an insult to have Kiss next to Jimi Hendrix, and that Husker Du is a seminal band, but Mellencamp just made basic rock, but you need to get off of your high horses (as does Dave Marsh, Jan Wenner and the rest of the nominating committee).

The Stones said it best, "It's Only Rock n Roll, but I Like It"

Posted by Gary on Tuesday, 09.5.06 @ 13:00pm

Congratulations, you just argued to put Britney Spears in the Hall with that.

Kiss, Rush, Styx, etc. are in the hall for the same reasons Ryan Leaf, Bubby Brister, and Todd Marinovich are not in the Football Hall of Fame. They were not good at what they did.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 09.5.06 @ 17:10pm

That is beyond silly since the R&R standard which I do agree with is the 25 year rule. IF after 25 years anyone is listening to Britney Spears, which I doubt, then she would meet the standard. The standard is longevity. Calling out excellence in Rock and Roll is what is silly. The Sex Pistols belong, but there is certainly nothing excellent about their music.

Posted by Gary on Tuesday, 09.5.06 @ 17:49pm

And secondly it is the ROCK and ROll hall of fame, not a sports hall of fame who obviously have different standards. 5 years after their retirements, no one will follow the careers of Bubby Brister, Todd Marinovich, Ryan Leaf, but 25 years after their first releases, people are still listening to Kiss, Styx, REO. That makes them good. Like it or not.

Posted by gary on Tuesday, 09.5.06 @ 17:53pm

Okay then, if KISS is analgous to Sex Pistols, name the genre they immediately brought up from the underground, keeping in mind that glam was already in full force.

There are just as many people who hate Kiss, Styx, and REO Speedwagon as there are who like them. They simply are not deserving of induction. And hypothetically if they were, there are already huge door-blockers in each of their subgenres which will keep them out anyway. KISS does not get in until the true father of glam, Marc Bolan is inducted. And Styx and REO Speedwagon, shitty third-rate psuedo-prog that they are, should not get in until the bands that actually laid the foundations for their pretentious pathetic noise like King Crimson, Genesis, ELP, and Procul Harem get in.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 09.6.06 @ 01:05am

So who made you the guardian of the "sancity of rock and roll"? and how is that you get to decide what a shitty group is and what isn't? I'm not even a fan of Kiss, Styx or REO, but there are quite a few out there. Styx and REO were selling out concerts as recently as 4 or 5 years ago. Your post just indicates the silly elitism of certain Rock fans. Read my first post, this isn't Mozart. NO rock song ever will compare with Beethoven's 9th or Mozart's "Le Nozze de Figaro". It is music for the masses, period. Don't get me wrong, I love rock and roll. I am very elitist about many things, but rock and elitism are antithetical. Hey I think Mark Bolan, Genesis, King Crimson and Procul Harem belong as well.

A further note: if you look at future eligibility, it is going to get pretty dry in a few years so maybe at that time the committee will start addressing the overdue acts.

Posted by Gary on Wednesday, 09.6.06 @ 06:01am

Rush, Van Halen, The Cure, R.E.M., Gram Parsons and Kiss
Probably the best guess anyone could make, although 2007 is R.E.M.'s first year of elligibility.

Posted by RP Gibbs on Wednesday, 09.6.06 @ 06:56am

Personally I think Tomorrow Never Knows compares very favorably with Beethoven's 9th.

There are some bands I don't like that I'd be willing to accept their nomination. Yes, for all the pain and suffering they have caused me, definitely contributed to the sonic landscape of music as part of the first wave of prog. The Sex Pistols are one of my least favorite bands ever, but you have to have them in if you're going to even pretend to recognize punk as a subgenre. But Kiss, Styx, Rush...ew. Just...ew.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 09.6.06 @ 07:42am

We've been trying like hell for the last 6 years to get Country Joe & The Fish + Canned Heat inducted into the Hall. The petition effort is going well. Best of luck to both........

Posted by Dave on Thursday, 09.7.06 @ 03:40am

With the 30th Anniversary of the Summer of Love coming in 2007 it is certainly time for Country Joe and The Fish to get the nod. They did contribute much to psychedelic music and for that reason alone they should get in. Go back and listen again to their first Vanguard LP "Electric Music for The Mind and Body".

Posted by Ron Cabral on Thursday, 09.7.06 @ 09:48am

Why isn't Daryl Hall and John Oates being considered? Am I missing something, or is being the most successful duo of all time not enough?

Posted by YesDave on Thursday, 09.7.06 @ 13:47pm

MC5, Canned Heat, Van Halen, The Stooges and Deep Purple.Maybe Alice Cooper and Judas Priest

Posted by Roméo Leriche on Sunday, 09.10.06 @ 07:25am

I say The Cure, Patti smith, Cheap Trick, Kiss, Van Halen, Rush, YES should get inducted not to mention the Stooges.

Posted by jerry morado on Sunday, 09.10.06 @ 12:08pm

Donna Summer why hasnt she been inducted?

Posted by David on Monday, 09.11.06 @ 08:26am

REO Suckwagon? Hall and Oates? Journey? John Cougar Mellonball? Are you effing kidding me? Yes? NO! Cheap Trick? Yuck. These bands did nothing but mainstream more important artists' contributions. Their popularity aside, what have they actually contributed to music?

I would add Leonard Cohen, Nick Lowe, Brian Eno, Tom Waits, Patti Smith, the Stooges and Squeeze.

Posted by jake on Tuesday, 09.12.06 @ 05:32am

Jake continues the thread of the oxymoronic line of Rock and Roll Snob. What did they contribute? They made and continue (emphasis on continue) to make people happy listening to their music. And they have done so for more than 25 years. Just because they don't make you happy DOES NOT make you the guardian of the "SANCTITY" of rock and roll.

Posted by Gary on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 06:52am

America's Funniest Home Videos makes me "happy." So does "Striptease." And I love the barking dofs singing "Jingle Bells." Does that make them Hall of Fame material? Certainly not. Your logic is seriously flawed, Gary. I mean The Partridge Family made me happy too. Yeeeesh...

Posted by jake on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 11:41am

Sorry Jake but it isn't. We are talking 25 years of making people happy, not momentary stuff. These acts still sell and are still listened to and by new audiences. The Partridge Family isn't still be played to decent sized audiences. Does the Partridge Family still make you happy even after 25 years? Is there a substantial audience of folks still listening to Partridge Family music. No, but there is for the groups mentioned.

Posted by Gary on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 12:42pm

Sorry Gary, but crap is crap, even if some people like it. The Hall of Fame's membership isn't simply for bands who still play the same songs they did 25 years ago, thus making people "happy." It's membership is for creative visionaries, bands that set trends or made a difference. I just don't see bubblegum bands like Cheap Trick or Journey as anything more than vapid, basic music. Perhaps they have their fans out there, but that's not a reason to induct them into the HoF. What actual contributions have they made to rock and roll? Certainly I'm a snob - so are you. But the fact remains that since your happy bands haven't been (nor will never be) inducted into the HoF, my snobbery is the standard. Sorry about that. Go listen to some REO Speedwagon; I know how "happy" that will make you!

Posted by jake on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 12:56pm

Creative visionaries? Now I'm really laughing. You and Kit ought to get together and work in a record store scolding the "commoners" ala Jack Black in Hi Fidelity. I would like to see Rock and Roll rid of its silly snobbery. Yes I am a snob too, but about great music light Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi and Bach. They were the creative visionaries. Perhaps only the Beatles have made music that will last as long and theirs has.

Posted by Gary on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 13:27pm


I love that movie.

You're acting as though rock is cursed to forever be "low art". Rock has been taken to so many different directions and new creative paths by an incredible number of bands who have expanded the lexicon of what rock truly means. I see no need to promote the ordinary, especially not the phallocentric simplicitic mind-numbing tripe of a band like KISS when so many other bands are out there. If it makes people happy, that's fine and dandy. But I'll stick with Joy Division thanks.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 14:21pm

That quote was from School of Rock BTW. One of my favorite movies,(and it is interesting that Yes is not in the HOF) And while I won't called it cursed, yes Rock is "low art". It is to music what Genre Fiction is to Books. Some good stuff, but not Dickens or Tolstoy.

Posted by Gary on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 16:05pm

Prog as an entire subgenre gets a big fat middle finger from the hall. Right now I'd put Yes on the waiting list behind Crimson and Genesis, but they should eventually get in (even though I'm not a fan).

We seem to have hit upon a fundamental disagreement when it comes to the high/low art question. Oh well, I guess I'll keep my snobby attitude and my Guardian uniform. =)

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 09.13.06 @ 17:24pm

Gary - By your logic, composers like Jacob Arcadelt or Antonio Salieri or Camille Saint-Saens would be considered Classical Hall of Fame composers because they were popular for 25 years and made people happy. Their music is tantamount to the Journeys and Hall and Oates of today. Nothing groundbreaking, but good for a whistle on a rainy day. But I rarely hear a good Arcadelt cantata even on a snobby classical music radio station.

Some people invent and others copy. REO Chuckwagon's reward is in pleasing tone deaf sycophants. The Ramones go to the Hall of Fame...

Posted by jake on Thursday, 09.14.06 @ 05:51am

Jake, you continually miss my point. First off, there is no classical music hall of fame and if there was the standard should be much higher than that of the Rock and Roll HOF. Rock and Roll is music for the masses and I would like to keep it from being taken over by elitist snobs who give it a bad name. The Ramones and elitism in the same sentence. Digest that for a while.

Second it the hall of FAME, note FAME, not talent, musicianship, or groundbreaking artist. Pretentiousness does not belong in the Rock and Roll lexicon.

Posted by Gary on Thursday, 09.14.06 @ 09:02am

From the HoF: "Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist’s contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll. Induction in the Hall of Fame recognizes the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame."

Explain to me how Journey or REO Pukewagon meet any of these criteria. Other than perpetuating the styles or inventiveness of the true artists who have been inducted, your pop bands have contributed nothing significant other than make some money.

Unless you want the criteria to change to include bands who make you happy for a long time, then let's just put everyone in because even Bobby Sherman or Michael Bolton has made someone happy for 25 years. Hell, I've listened to the same Headboys album for at least 25 years, let's include them too.

The HoF has been designed and continues to be run by "elitist snobs" who understand the difference between significance and blather, so the takeover started when the Hall was conceived.

So, despite your pleas to the contrary, Styx and Journey and Hall and/or Oates can only visit the HoF; not be members.

Posted by jake the snob on Thursday, 09.14.06 @ 09:58am

so what is the definition of significant? For Rock and Roll it should't be much, since again it is not high art. Significant contribution can mean a sustained career of making albums or performing live that quite a few people enjoy(outside the R&R nominating Star Chamber and critics who feel they have to justify their careers as more than just writing about a popular form of music).

I continually laugh at your "true artist" comment. This is a basic disagreement that is not going to be answered by an logical argument. You feel that either snobbery is OK for R&R or that it is high art, while feel that since it is not high art, snobbery has no place.

Posted by Gary on Thursday, 09.14.06 @ 11:52am

Hall of Fame is not a phrase meant to be taken literally. Saying that it's the Hall of Fame, not the hall of talent and originality is a very silly argument.

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 09.14.06 @ 14:34pm

Under your standards, the Hall will be like the Walk of Fame on Hollywood Boulevard, where Robert De Niro gets a star, but so does Ryan Seacrest. Popularity DOES NOT equate to what a HoF stands for. It's an insult to great artists to even think about putting mediocre to crappy "popular" bands in the Hall. Maybe we should include Jefferson Starship/Starshit and Donny Osmond too. I mean, they still pack 'em in at the Ramada in Dumb####, AK.

Posted by jake on Friday, 09.15.06 @ 06:50am

Insult??? wow I laugh again. I'm sure when the founders of rock and roll and even a good part of the "artists" who got into it so they could get chicks would be just crestfallen at being in a museum with Journey and REO. Oooh that must hurt their egos. My guess is that that don't give a rat's ass and say the more the merrier. Hell, look at Ozzy's and The Sex Pistols attitude about the HoF. They think it pretty silly as well. Do you just get off on getting to say things like REO Suckwagon and Dumb####,AK. Get with the program dude, They ain't great artists. They make good rock and roll music.

My point (as if I haven't made it enough) is that I think what the HoF stands for is elistist crap and that it shouldn't. And I'm sorry again, but just because a bunch of Rolling Stone critics and wannabe critics calls it crap, don't make it so.

Posted by Gary on Friday, 09.15.06 @ 14:48pm

IF you're going to let everyone in, why have a Hall at all?

The phrase Hall of Fame implies something. It implies The Best of the Best. Bands that wallow in mediocrity need not apply. If anything, the Hall might be too inclusive, letting also-rans like Del Shannon and Percy Sledge get in while continuing to ignore entire subgenres like prog and metal.

Really, if all it takes is having a fanbase after 25 years, you'd be hardpressed to find a band that isn't hall-worthy. And if that's so, why have one at all?

Posted by Kit on Friday, 09.15.06 @ 15:24pm

Nicely said, Kit. And the cold hard fact is those crappy bands will never get in, no matter how many times Gary tries to make his point. The snobs thankfully are the deciders of who gets in, and thus far they have been astute enough to know the difference between a diamond and a turd. Oh wait, I didn't say REO Hurlwagon yet. Okay, I feel better now.

Posted by jake on Friday, 09.15.06 @ 18:19pm

There needs to be about 10 inductees for 2007 for KISS and Patti Smith should be inducted but also some of the older bands like the Chiffons and Imperials and Chantels and Marvelettes should finally be inducted too. And lets also put in Donna Summer and ABBA too.

Posted by Kent on Friday, 09.15.06 @ 21:22pm

ABBA? Now that's funny...

Posted by jake on Friday, 09.15.06 @ 21:34pm

why have a R&R HoF at all is actually a pretty good question and I'm not sure one is really justified. I just visited it last month and while it was on the whole, an enjoyable experience, as the exhibit hall actually recognized that it is essentially pop culture, the HoF part got off of that point. It was a nice visit, but I have no reason to back.

And having a substantial fan base after 25 years is NOT insignficant, as much as that makes the snob cringe.

Posted by Gary on Sunday, 09.17.06 @ 18:09pm

It occurs to me that someone who questions whether or not there should be a rock and roll hall of fame is not the best person to consult on the matter of who deserves to be so honored or not.

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 09.17.06 @ 20:01pm

Yeah, maybe you can start your own with your un-snobby "significant" REO Blowsballswagon-type bands. I'm sure the tourists would flock to see that...

Posted by jake on Sunday, 09.17.06 @ 20:32pm

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should also consider nominating these artist: Genesis, Alice Cooper, Def Leppard, Duran Duran, The Cars, Journey, Doobie Brothers, Dire Straits and Bryan Adams along with the 15 artist that are predicted for 2007 like Van Halen, John Mellencamp, Cheap Trick, Stooges, Kiss, Deep Purple, and R.E.M

Posted by Kyle Van Pelt on Tuesday, 09.19.06 @ 12:30pm

My 2007 Prediction

1. Genesis
2. Kiss
3. John Mellencamp
4. Stooges
5. Van Halen

If R.E.M. is nominated, then I would say that R.E.M. will be inducteed this year, and not the Stooges. Stooges will probably be in by 2008. Grandmaster Flash will be in by the time either Run DMC or Beastie Boys get inducted

Posted by Kyle on Tuesday, 09.19.06 @ 12:35pm

1. Genesis - maybe
2. Kiss - doubtful
3. John Mellencamp - ha ha ha ha
4. Stooges - should, but won't
5. Van Halen - probably

Posted by jake on Tuesday, 09.19.06 @ 14:49pm

Let's not forget:

Bachman Turner Overdrive
Peter Frampton
Steve Forbert
Root Boy Slim and the Sex Change Band
Oingo Boingo
Marie Osmond
David Soul
The Monkees

They all suck too.

Posted by jake on Wednesday, 09.20.06 @ 04:45am

Why not Jeff Beck? An excellent artist who practically invented the hard rock sound. Him and Jimmy Page were good friends and he inspired Page to a great deal, and inspired Led Zeppelin as a whole for that matter.

Posted by steve on Thursday, 09.21.06 @ 12:08pm

As a Rock and Roll fan, my opinion is just as valid as any one else's on this board. I do believe that the concept of a Hall of Fame is essentially elitist which is antithetical to what Rock and Roll is about at it's very core, but since they already have it, I think the standards should be different from those of, say, the Baseball HoF which has much more objective criteria for entrance. I'm not an REO fan but I would love to see them get in only if it makes the snobs get their panties in a wad. I think that is what they deserve for being R&R snobs.

Posted by Gary on Friday, 09.22.06 @ 16:16pm

There's a difference between being a snob and having a minimum standard of quality though.

Posted by Kit on Friday, 09.22.06 @ 21:09pm

Y'all have lost it.... It's all about "The Music", and "The Music" is "ROCK & ROLL".

Who cares about the stupid candy-assed Hall of Fame.... Enjoy your stupid bickering.

Posted by Fill on Saturday, 09.23.06 @ 10:57am

Which is why you took your time to visit a website dedicated to the "stupid candy-assed" Hall of Fame...good job, you win the Stupid Prize...

Posted by Kit on Saturday, 09.23.06 @ 11:53am

Nicely said, Fill - Rock and Roll is music. Two and two are four too! Oh, and apparently you cared enough about the candyass HoF to not only visit, but to post something. What a dolt... Rock and Roll!!! Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh!!

Posted by jake on Saturday, 09.23.06 @ 17:59pm

Without these artists the R&R HOF will have ZERO credibility among rock fans who lived through the rock era.
1. Neil Diamond
2. The Guess Who
3. Chubby Checker
4. Connie Francis
5. The Moody Blues
6. The Dave Clark 5
7. Chicago
8. Jethro Tull
9. The Hollies
10. Dick Dale

The one thing all these artists have in common ??? They all deserve to be inducted on MERIT, which is something the rockhall obviously does NOT understand!

Posted by brian on Wednesday, 09.27.06 @ 11:32am

Nice list, brian. I meant that sarcastically of course:

1. Neil Diamond - a hack
2. The Guess Who - wimpy, soulless music
3. Chubby Checker - a fad
4. Connie Francis - rock and roll?
5. The Moody Blues - maybe
6. The Dave Clark 5 - Dick Clark maybe
7. Chicago - surprised they aren't in; I hate them, but I'm still surprised
8. Jethro Tull - okay
9. The Hollies - mediocre band
10. Dick Dale - possibility

Posted by crispy on Wednesday, 09.27.06 @ 13:13pm


Posted by ROBERT on Thursday, 09.28.06 @ 18:40pm


Because they sucked?

Posted by jake on Friday, 09.29.06 @ 12:21pm

I'm not nearly as harsh as Jake...Jeff Lynne was a master of hooks (there's a reason he was made a Wilbury), but they're to ambitious to be straight-up pop rock and they're too syrupy to be prog so they're stranded without a subgenre. There's other bands whose concerns need to be adressed before we get to ELO.

Posted by Kit on Friday, 09.29.06 @ 19:28pm

Hmm, well they missed a little band called T REX/MARC BOLAN. ####ING ROCK HALL OF FAME DUMBASSES

Posted by Augustus Mithoff on Saturday, 09.30.06 @ 23:05pm

I think that the Hall of Fame Committee should have announced the 15 nominees about two weeks ago or so. They are doing a bad job with finalizing the nominees. I figure once the nominees are ever announce, I will feel alot better as long as Van Halen and John Mellencamp are at least on this year's ballot. They should both be in for sure.

Posted by Kyle Van Pelt on Monday, 10.2.06 @ 12:05pm

Ok, a little perspective for all you KISS haters and particulary for one whose name rhymes with "zit". Rock N' Roll is by definition about sex and good times. If you want to sing about depression, suicidal tendencies, and how the whole world is against you...well, there's classical and country music.
Ok, now some stats on KISS and why they are well deserving of induction. 34 years with 90-100 million records sold, 40 gold (tops for a US artist & 2nd behind the Beatles), 29 platinum records, over 2000 performances. 5 albums simultaneously in the top 200 in '76. In '77 the two top recording artists were KISS and a man named Elvis. A lot of the hall inductees and ones we are talking about this year co-headlined and most opened for KISS. Tom Petty, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Journey, REO, John Cougar, Iron Maiden, Sammy Hagar, Judas Priest, Motley Crue, Aerosmith, Iggy, Fleetwood Mac, Styx, Ted Nugent, Cheap Trick, T Rex, Scorpions,The Raspberries, Ozzy solo, Rush & Bon Jovi. BOC & NY Dolls by their own admission got blown off the stage by KISS. Gene Simmons discovered Van Halen and financed their demo and in '83 Eddie wanted to replace Ace in KISS. KISS was voted most popular band from '77-'79 beating out "little" bands like Zep, the Eagles, & McCartney. No-one will ever top the Gallup poll 3 years in a row. Simmons has written with Dillon, Zappa, & Lou Reed. They don't seem to think KISS sucks. Simmons was within a hair of getting the Beatles to re-unite for his '78 solo release. Only Ringo opted out. Wouldn't it have been great to hear the Beatles together one last time two years before John's death? Thanks Ringo. Somehow George, John, and Paul thought KISS was relevant enough to work with. KISS recorded with legendary producers like Bob Ezrin, Eddie Kramer, and Bruce Fairbairn. KISS single-handidly made live albums a staple in the '70's with what many consider the best live album ever (KISS Alive). By the way, KISS did bring spectacle to concerts each and every night and were the first band to ever get the audience to stand throughout the show.... now a must for any true rock fan.
Now about the influence of KISS on pop-culture. KISS has more than 1500 trademarks and patents. They are the 3rd most collected artist in history behind the Beatles and closing in on Elvis. Let's face it...KISS swag is a lot cooler than a "fat" Elvis velvet painting. KISS is the most researched artist on E-Bay 2 to 1. KISS matched and in many ways surpassed the Beatles in merchandising ($3/4 billion since '96). They brought rock music to children through ingenious items like make-up kits, comic books, lunch boxes. many of these kids are now famous in their own right. Madonna, Garth Brooks, Lenny Kravitz, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam just to name a few. KISS was pretty much the first group to sell t-shirts and tour books at concerts in a grand scale. Now I, in no way, am a fan of everything they put out on the market...but guess what? You don't have to buy it. They are smart and know that merchandising is a great way to appeal to new generations of fans. The KISS logo is more recognizable than most of the companies on the NYSE. The lightening bolt "S" is the most common way to script the letter S in anything to do with rock. VH1 classic uses the exact KISS "S" in their logo. Many KISS items have found their way into the Smithsonian including the KISS Alive album cover and Gene's trademarked condoms.
KISS will never die. When everyone thought they were gone in the early '90's they came back reunited and had the top grossing tour of '96... 20 years after conquering stadiums and arenas in the '70s. That tour pretty much put an end to the grunge era and declared if people are going to spend money on a concert...you better make it a show and blow some stuff up! 2 years later they introduced the first 3-D tour. Yep, that's right...3-D.
If nothing else... they brought the world the most dedicated fans in entertainment...the KISS Army! We are the only ones who believe enough in their band to travel thousands of miles to protest in front of the Hall. Dave Marsh and his Rolling Stone cronies will be toppled.
So, I think I made my point... and if you Goth lovers want to bitch about the world go ahead... but think about who is the true embodiment of Rock N' Roll... KISS. The cure, REM...don't make me laugh.
That being said ...this is a great forum to discuss and debate who should be in the Hall and Rock has always encouraged one to state or scream his or her opinion. As Paul Stanley says... "Never Stop Rockin".

Posted by David on Monday, 10.2.06 @ 15:42pm

Most of those stats you cite, according to Billboard and other reliable sites, are, uh, what's the word, lies. Gene Simmons loves to make shit up about his record.

I don't see what lunchboxes have to with any of this. The Monkees had lunchboxes too and they're standing in line too. Maybe Gene and Davey boy Jones can have a good cry over having no talent.

Their music is brainless, Ace Frehley is one of the most ridiculously unskilled guitarists in the buisness, Simmons is a lying loudmouthed scumbucket, and Kiss ALIVE is not a live album at all. The tracks are all studio re-recordings with lovely shouting sound-effects piped in.

I don't see what's laughable or un-rock'n'####in'roll about either REM or The Cure. Granted, sometimes I want to tell Robert Smith to shut the hell up about his dead girlfriend, but his songs were always without a doubt original and well-written. And REM, along with the aforementioned Cure and The Replacements and The Smiths basically kept songwriting alive in the glam'n'synth 80s.

You also seem to ridicule songs about "depression" as though that's not worthy to talk about. Rock is not limited to the "I like beer and women and having a penis" schlock that KISS produced, lyrics about every topic under the sun have been written and included in the rock subgenre. No lyrical topic is superior to another, all that matters is the skill with which they are handled.

Kiss fans are devoted, I will admit that. It's really too bad that your devotion is not at all in proportion to their actual talent. =)

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 10.3.06 @ 15:31pm

Determining who goes into a hall of fame is a matter of classifying and ranking. KISS falls (in my opinion) into the Glam category of rock. No shame in that, hall member and genitillatic freak of nature David Bowie is the granddaddy of glam. But what are some other bands that fall in the glam category? T-Rex, Mott the Hoople, and Slade, all very formidable (and underappreciated) bands, all of whom are EONS better than KISS.

"But Kit, what the hell is this glam bullshit? What about Hard Rock, huh? Or Metal, as the kids call it these days?" I'm so glad you asked this, although clean up your language in the future.

Metal, as nearly everyone who listens to it will tell you, is shockingly under-repped in the Hall. This line goes around the end of the block, and KISS is last behind Deep Purple, Rainbow, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Free (who INVENTED cock-rock), Alice Cooper, Blue Cheer, Thin Lizzy, Van Halen, and starting in 2008, Metallica.

Not even considering that glam and metal are but two genres in a form that is littered with scores of genres and subgenres that all need to be considered (Progressive ftw).

KISS should not be on anyone's radar for inclusion in the hall until there are literally no other options in the two subgenres they are most commonly associated with.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 10.3.06 @ 15:46pm

Kit, you are obviously well versed in rock history and I appreciate that. It seems that we are both awaiting anxiously the nominees for this year.
Talent seems to be the upmost criteria for you in choosing a nominee. While I can certainly be awed by immense talent...feeling, spirit and entertainment value do it for me. Joe Satriani is a great guitarist for sure but I have never heard anyone say his music really "speaks to them". Surely, KISS will never be considered great musical talents... they have excelled in showmanship. Ace Frehley is technically at a deficit but he is by most accounts in the top 5 influential guitarists. He inspired countless kids to pick up a guitar after seeing the cover of Alive! Part of the reason was the music was simple but catchy and thus attainable for someone learning to play. Music is mostly filed under the heading "entertainment" not proficiency. If I want to see musical prodigees I'll catch the local symphony. That's why most major cities have a symphony but there is only one Beatles, Stones or dare I say... KISS. I love Zeppelin but honestly after seeing the 6 hour DVD "How the West Was Won"...their shows left a lot to be desired as far as a concert experience. The Beatles were very lacking on stage (part of it was the old technology), that's one of the reasons they quit touring. Each band has their strong points. KISS' is on stage in front of 25,000 screaming fans. Would you consider the Romones (who by the way were/are big KISS fans) or the Sex Pistols quite musically talented? Probably not, but they insprired many. Thus, they are in the Hall. Don't kid yourself...the board in the past hasn't been so much concerned about "talent" or credentials as much as they have a personal interest, owe favors or they worked for the label who discovered the artists who have made it in. Most of the board and nominees and inductees are/were in the same bed... and that could be literal. I suspect that's how Blondie got in. I like many Blondie songs but Hall-worthy, maybe not! Are many of the Mowtown artists very talented? Likely not. Most couldn't play an instrument and had others write for them. Just as long as Barry Gordy or Quincy Jones gave them the go ahead. From what I'm reading of late there is a new chairman who isn't inbred and actually thinks KISS is a logical consideration. A nightmare for some.
As far as Alive! being manufactured. Almost every band "touches up" a live album. If they didn't it would sound inferior to the studio cuts. It does however chronicle the vibe of what the band is about onstage.
Am I pigeon-holed as a KISS fan? You bet, even by my family. Guess what? I have never taken drugs, never smoked, been told I'm way too old-fashioned with women for my own good, and you know what?... I don't want a one-night stand. Don't assume you know what a KISS fan is. We are lawyers, firemen/woman, accountants, and even today's musicians.
I wonder how many KISS songs you have heard or are you blinded solely by their image? Yes, many of the songs are about sex, girls, and partying but many are also about self-reliance, pride and even lovelost, sorrow, and doubt. Their 1997 release "Carnival of Souls" is very grunge-like and very dark but also very lyrical and sonically complex. I dare you to give it a listen. KISS have succeeded at many genres... metal, pop-rock (Dynasty & Unmasked), concept albums (The Elder), Disco including the dance-rock hit "I Was Made For Loving You" (Madonna cited this as an inspiration), country "Hard Luck Woman" (Garth Brook's fav) and even a symphonic pairing with Beck's father..David Campbell on Alive 4.
Is Gene Simmons a a**hole. Likely! But, isn't David Lee Roth a jerk? How about any of the Sex Pistols? They call their fans all kinds of foul things. Their re-union in '96 was a failure and soon after we see them getting sued and appearing on the Peoples Court. Not very dignified. Phil Spector murdered and looks like a freak but the board looks past that.
As the Hall states officially... it's about if an artist has given much to inspire future artists and promotes the "word" of rock into pop-culture and to the world. This is where I think KISS has a good chance and should be nominated and rightfully inducted.
So, we should see in the near future what will happen. Thanks for reading my opinions.

Posted by David on Wednesday, 10.4.06 @ 02:54am

I'd love to see The Guess Who make it in.

At a time when some of the biggest names in music history - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Cream, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, The Jackson 5 - were releasing hits, a small Canadian group still managed to hit #1. I think that alone qualifies them.

They have since been heavily influential in Canada.

That's the thing with the Rock Hall of Fame, they mainly focus on artists that have had an impact in the United States and completely ignore groups that have had success mainly in their own countries, (ie. Guess Who, BTO, Tragically Hip, Bryan Adams in Canada) or in Europe (ie. ABBA)

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 10.4.06 @ 09:38am

I know music is subjective but here's why these artists will get in in 2007:

John Mellencamp- for 80s works from "Jack and Diane" to Uh-Huh, Scarecrow, and Lonesome Jubilee to Farm Aid and Falling From Grace (He's rock n' roll and we like it

R.E.M.- for everything from Murmur to Document to Automatic for the People, this band did their own thing well for a lot of years(all time fav-It's the End of the World As We Know It(And I Feel Fine))

Patti Smith- an Influence from everyone from R.E.M. to the Pretenders to Sonic Youth, and a great poet/performer(hi-lights Horses and Dream of Life)

Van Halen- One Word- Eddie- the greatest guitarist this side of Hendrix and Clapton

Grandmaster Flash- It's true, Rap doesn't get its due and he was one of the pioneers, should be in for "The Message" alone

Deep Purple- As big a hard rock/ metal influence as Sabbath, and better musicians and group to boot("Smoke on the Water" and "Highway Star" are incendiary!)

As for the rest, well that's all folks for me this year


Posted by Luis on Thursday, 10.5.06 @ 05:21am

John Mellencamp ALL THE WAY!!!

And let's see Chic finally make it (twice before nominated), as well as getting Todd Rundgren and Jerry Butler AT LEAST nominated. Not to mention like all the others thus mentioned.

Posted by DJ Dave M on Friday, 10.6.06 @ 21:14pm

How many of you have actually ever listened to the entire library of Hall & Oates? Albums such as "Abandoned Luncheonette," "Along the Red Ledge," and others have some great music. Musical tastes are indeed subjective, but I say that Daryl and John have made good folk, pop, rock, and soul music -- and lots of it. It might not be to your particular taste, but if anyone deserves to be in the Hall, it's the all-time number one duo with 29 Top Forty hits, including six Number Ones (not including AC and other formats).

Posted by Ree on Tuesday, 10.10.06 @ 00:19am

Shit is still shit no matter whether it's number one or not. Just another mediocre pop band that took no chances and influenced NOBODY! Hall & Oates will never get in!

Posted by jake on Tuesday, 10.10.06 @ 20:25pm

BOC would NEVER "by their own admission" or otherwise, be blown off the stage by KISS. Kiss is the 70's answer to the Monkees, only the Monkees were actually ok musicians, just not allowed to perform. BOC actually helped KISS get started, by allowing them to open for them, in 1973.
It is BOC who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and until then, it is really the hall of shame...

Posted by Marty on Thursday, 10.12.06 @ 13:54pm

Question: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame...

Why is a rap artist considered to be admitted?

That's an honest question. Because I have no idea. I guess my idea of rock and roll is different from the magazine editors (and reading this entire conversation thing above, it looks like the HOF doesn't intend to woo me, as a 19 year old general rock (the whole spectrum of rock) listener, to go see the HOF) that make the decision as to who gets in.

Posted by Andy on Friday, 10.13.06 @ 08:31am

they have got to start putting in metal artist. so far they have only put in black sabbath, ac/dc, queen & zepplin

if there is only a few metal artist then i might as well ask why the bloody hell havent they inducted: judas priest, iron Maiden, def leppard, motorhead,

those bands did better stuff than miles davis or snot head olviia newton-john

Posted by martin on Saturday, 10.14.06 @ 00:43am


Posted by rob donison on Saturday, 10.14.06 @ 16:18pm

All this stuff about all these bands that should be in .. Well maybe some should and some should not... But one band comes to mind that has been neglected for years... The band has been together since the late sixties and early seventies and they still but on one hell of a show... They mix Jazz fusion with rock... and yes in some of the later years have added some of the same basic pop... But this pop is so much better than REO or Styx..50 chart hits from 1969 to 1997... 25 or 6 to 4 to Alive Again to Hard to Say I'm Sorry---Chicago deserves the ROCK hall.....Not even Mentioned

Posted by Stan Crawford on Saturday, 10.14.06 @ 20:31pm

What about: the Great FOCUS,CAMEL,CARAVAN,GENTLE GIANT,HATFIELD AND THE NORTH,KING CRIMSON,GONG,VANGELIS, they are much better than kiss,reo sp,styx,journey,amrosia,and all that american bands of the early 70's OH YEAH !!

Posted by franstiger on Monday, 10.16.06 @ 20:08pm

Obviously, who should or should not be inducted is a subjective thing just like everyone's personal tastes. I think the definition of Rock and Roll itself is open to debate. I personally think Rock and Roll is more than just hard rock. I think Rock and Roll also encompasses attitude, style, heart and soul. I think an artists influence is sometimes more important than the number of hits or album sales. I also believe that impressive sales & popularity should not be ignored.

I know that many people will disagree with my list of hopefuls. Some will say 'they suck' and they have their right to their opinion.

Moody Blues
Doobie Brothers
Mary Wells
Linda Ronstadt
Jerry Butler
The Diamonds
The Guess Who
Neil Diamond
Carly Simon
Donna Summer
Deep Purple
Alice Cooper
Gram Parsons
Chubby Checker (much more than just a fad, he charted well over 30 hits. He made some great rock and roll records and he is still out touring and amazing audiences with his talent and energy.)

There are more. I love REM and Mellencamp, but I was concentrating on older artists that I feel have been overlooked.

Posted by Ben on Wednesday, 10.18.06 @ 10:59am

People mention KISS. KISS copied Alice Cooper. Hands down, Alice is the Father of Shock Rock. He belongs in there long before KISS gets in.

Posted by Maddie on Wednesday, 10.18.06 @ 15:59pm

T. REX / Marc Bolan IS rock and roll, and since 'The Slider' is more than probably the absolute most exciting album ever made (yes) WHY has he been hanging in limbo since 1993???? And what about Donovan??? The Small Faces??? And many many others as well.....it occurs to me that bands that had the most impact on America are the first considered(that is unless you are Neil Diamond or Chubby Checker). Britain spawned the best of the best. And to think it took Bowie 4 years to finally be given a spot. sad.

Posted by Starsinmybeard on Wednesday, 10.18.06 @ 22:23pm

Love them or hate them, by far the most deserving of induction according to the criteria (influential, etc.) set forth by the foundation is Van Halen. Not one artist eligible and not yet inducted has had as much influence as Eddie Van Halen did in the 80's. Period. Anyone who disagrees should "Beat It". Kiss is probably next...

Posted by sutoman on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 00:38am

What about "Wierd Al" Yankovic?
Although not exactly "Rock", he HAS been an infspiration over the years to artists he's emulated and is well respected by the majority of artists in the music industry, many of whom (Such as Kurt Cobain of Nirvana and the recent rapper Chamillinonaire) have stated that you haven't truly made it big until you've been parodied by "Weird Al".
His now 25 year career has seen him outlast most serious groups that he's parodied as well as virtually being synonymous with the term "parody" as many songs on the internet he hasn't written get attributed to him.
While there are other groups out there that are deserving to be inducted, their reach in music should be considered nostalgic at best.
"Weird Al" has continued to evolve with he times and is still one of the most beloved and top selling artists of our generation.
He dares to do what noone else will, take a medium that sometimes takes itself WAY too seriously and gives it a kick in the seat! Now THAT's Rock and Roll!!
I think his time has come.

Posted by Robert on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 11:09am

Just a quick question,
I thought in order to get into the RnR HoF the bands career had to be at least 25 years or something. Is this true? Because I have noticed people talking about bands that lasted much shorter than that. Or is there some clause for bands that were prematurely disbanded due to a death, breakup or something? If that is not the case, how would influential bands like Nirvana that virtually overnight changed the music scene with "Grunge Rock" ever be nominated? Not saying I think they should, I'm just giving an example. What do they do then?

Posted by Robert on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 11:21am

Robert.. you don't have to have a 25 year long career. You just have to have released a record 25 years ago to be eligible. There are plenty of Hall of Famers who never lasted 5 years, much less 25.

Posted by c.w. on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 11:25am

To c.w.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I think it's great to have a site like this where people can discuss and share their knowledge and opinions of music no matter what the tastes!!

Posted by Robert on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 11:32am

I really like the debates that I read on here and the way people defend their genres of music for nominations!!
It makes me laugh how people can be so serious about entertainment!
LOL! Keep it up guys!

Posted by Robert on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 11:33am

It's mid-October. why has the Hall not released their list of 2007 nominees yet? If they have, please send me the link ! thanks markstevens1111 at hotmail dot com

Posted by Mark stevens on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 17:27pm

Basically, Van Halen revolutionized guitar playing, the man invented his own style and tone. If there's anyone that deserves a spot there, it's them. I want them to get it, they're my favorite band, but you have to admit. The Rock Hall is going to induct someone else who doesn't even deserve to be on there. Like who, you ask? Oh...The Bee Gees? Since when have they been rock? SINCE WHEN HAS DISCO BEEN IN THE ROCK HALL? When huh? That gets on my nerves when there are such influential bands out there "Halen(Guitar, Sabbath(Invented Metal...Long overdue I might add), Rush and Yes(What do they have against progressive?), KISS (Okay, so how the hell can someone think of "Rock 'N Roll" without thinking of Kiss? It just is really stupid to me.
Either way, the 2007 inductions will suck, because they're going to put in some popular singer that nobody cares about anymore and slap a nice "Rock On" sticker to their foreheads. Grandmaster what's his name? I just thought I'd let you guys at the Rock Hall in on something. Rap and Disco, aren't Rock. They have never been, and never will. Why do you induct people like Run DMC into a ROCK HALL. Give the rappers a hip hop hood or something. In the next 25 years, I don't want to say to my children "When I was your age, I was idolizing Mr. Van Halen up there. He's the man with the black hair next to Dr. Dre." It's just not something I want to see.

Posted by Justin on Saturday, 10.21.06 @ 00:54am

I think Alice Cooper should get in just for his cameo in "Wayne's World". That ruled.

Posted by Mike on Saturday, 10.21.06 @ 00:58am

I think Justin should calm down and realize that the Rock Hall is, for all intents and purposes more accurately called the Popular 20th Century Music Hall and stop his bitching. Also, the Bee Gees were a fairly decent folk act for years before disco was even a word.

PS: I love latent racism. It makes me laugh.

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 10.22.06 @ 17:50pm

Justin needs to read carefully: Black Sabbath is already in, Van Halen will be inducted this year, Rush, Yes and KISS all suck, the Bee Gees were around for twenty years before they did the disco tunes for Saturday Night Fever, and rap certainly constitutes "rock and roll." If you want to segregate rap or hip hop out of rock and roll, then why not metal or progressive? Be consistent; you sound a little racist.

Posted by jake on Monday, 10.23.06 @ 08:06am

Rush and Yes are far, far away from sucking. Get a clue, boys n girls.

However, Kiss sucks in a big way. Not even rock. Circus act with reverb noise, a tongue, explosions and makeup.

Posted by Jack on Monday, 10.23.06 @ 17:08pm

Styx blows goats. Yes molests collies. A sample of the wussy lyrics of Styx:

The times were good,
but over now,
a pleasant memory.
I'm sorry, there's another face
one that's close to me.
You know 'bout what I learned
and there's no stone left unturned.
The times were good,
but over now,
a pleasant memory. (Sigh)

Insert vomit icon here...

Posted by jake on Monday, 10.23.06 @ 18:48pm

It's always interesting to me the choices for induction into the RnR Hall Of Fame. Most are innovative and groundbreaking (which I think is the main prerequisit or at least should be) artists that both influenced countless other bands and redefined particular genres (albeit inventing them themselves!) then there are always others that really make no sense.
Although I admire artists like John Mellencamp and even Van Halen, they barely invented a new sound and certainly didn't "redefine" but rather rehashed an already existing musical idea (i.e. country/folk-based Americana rock and fret-active thundering heavy metal, respectively). The other mentioned artists: Brian Eno, R.E.M., Joy Division, The Cure, The Stooges, MC5 (just to name a few)these artists' influence on rock groups and styles cannot even be measured with any logical method we have today. Basically what I am getting at is, I started to lose faith in this "Hall Of Fame" in the past couple of years when I witnessed The Clash and the Ramones get inducted BEFORE the Stooges or MC5 (?!?) and Black Sabbath being passed up for several years in a row. But if Kiss were to be inducted into an institution that is supposed to represent important artists that have changed music as we know it forever, and not the aforementioned bands, or even Deep Purple or Van Hagar, for that matter...I will permanently disregard the concept as a whole as nothing more than rhetorical hype.

Posted by Ethan on Tuesday, 10.24.06 @ 15:41pm

How about:
The Hollies
Jethro Tull
Peter Gabriel

Posted by Brian Lenni on Tuesday, 10.24.06 @ 16:11pm

This is Rock N Roll NOT rap Rock N Roll is the Best music avaiable and always will be. If there was a Rap Hall of Fame No way would they consider a Rock Band.
Deep Purple is Long Overdue and should be in hands down.

Posted by Sid on Tuesday, 10.24.06 @ 20:23pm

Sid -

Your prejudice is showing. Why is metal considered rock and not rap? Is progressive okay? How about jazz or disco?

Also, buy a dictionary...

Posted by jake on Tuesday, 10.24.06 @ 20:34pm

What's with the rap hate? You people sound like the idiot mullet-rockers who listened to Journey and Red Rider and Foreigner while the rest of the world discovered punk and post-punk...

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 10.24.06 @ 20:57pm

I lick the monkeys und da arrowsmid und soul couffin und blow monkeys und carpenters und the rap.

Posted by sped on Wednesday, 10.25.06 @ 05:52am

Iff Kiss gets in to the Hall before Alice Cooper,
There is something really wrong with where music is going.
David Bowie is in. Frank Zappa is in.
Alice should have been in years ago.
Visit my website to see a petition to get him in.

This really should be a no-brainer.

Posted by Scott Ramsey on Wednesday, 10.25.06 @ 11:47am

I completely agree with Alice Cooper getting in (I can't believe he's not there already). And come on people...it's the ROCK & ROLL Hall of Fame, and the one band with it's orginal line-up, still making NEW records and touring, and still sounding fantastic...and still ROCKIN' is Cheap Trick! To me it's a travisty they are not in yet! Even if you don't like their music, they have been spreading the rock & roll word around the world for 3 decades...they are rock and roll!

Posted by mike on Wednesday, 10.25.06 @ 22:36pm

I could live with Alice getting in, but Cheap Trick? They are a glorified cover band. Just because they've been "spreading the R&R word" for three decades is not enough reason to induct them. They had one album that was okay, about twenty five years ago. Since then, what? I know bar bands that have been rocking for three decades too; should they get in?

Posted by jake on Thursday, 10.26.06 @ 04:44am

Ah, obviously not a CT fan. But a glorified cover band? And yes, maybe those bar bands that have been playing together for 3 decades should get in ..if they sold millions of records, released 16 studio albums, numerous greatest hits records, a box set and about a half a dozen live albums. Not to mention the long list of bands that claim CT as a huge influence. A lot has happened since that "okay" album 25 years ago. Check it out. But, if you're not a fan, you're not a fan.

Posted by Mike on Thursday, 10.26.06 @ 22:02pm

Cheap Trick is not on my radar at all. I like'em alright, but there are a ton of performers more innovative, more influencial, and more good-er (that's not a word but just play along for now) left out in the cold. Don't waste my time with Cheap Trick until King Crimson, the MC5, Patti Smith et al. are enshrined.

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 10.26.06 @ 22:56pm

I can't imagine any band would say that CT is an influence for them; at least not any good bands. If you have specifics, I'd love to hear them. CT was/is a fun band, nothing more.

Posted by jake on Friday, 10.27.06 @ 08:20am

the jam for 2007

Posted by del on Friday, 10.27.06 @ 11:05am

2 Words:Def Leppard.The Masters of Hard Rock Pop;
they are a band that did not implode like so many others and with what they have went through,they easily could have but,did not.Van Halen dropped the ball w/their revolving door
policy and DL just continued on and on to this day(new release coming 2007).These guys are humble and David Fricke of Rolling Stone Loves
Them!! They really should be in,come on if Elvis
Costello is in....

Posted by David on Saturday, 10.28.06 @ 23:58pm

OK, so after hitting Wikipedia...

Rock and roll, APPARENTLY means, to some people, just about anything that sounds like music.

What does the American public (and myself) think rock and roll is?

Music with guitars, to be simplistic (Buddy Holly, Kiss, Cheap Trick, Nirvana, etc).

As the poster above said, it should be renamed as the "20th Century Popular Music Hall of Fame." To label it as a rock and roll hall of fame is to mislead the american public.

It'd be like me trying to use the term "liberal" to describe someone that believes in the classical liberal ideas, which have now become "conservative."

Words change, as should the hall's name.

Posted by Andy on Sunday, 10.29.06 @ 00:11am

The nominees are in, and the snobs prevail again! No Styx, Yes, REO Suckwagon, Deaf Leppard, Hall and/or Oates, Cheap Trick, etc.

Looks like Van Halen, REM and Patti Smith are shoe-ins. The Stooges probably won't make it - maybe Chic?

Posted by jake on Sunday, 10.29.06 @ 20:11pm

KISS misses again! Sucking so bad really hurts their chances. Ha ha ha...

Posted by doug on Sunday, 10.29.06 @ 20:14pm

I have been a charter member since membership was made available. I support the the Hall of Fame whole heartedly. Having come of age in the sixties in Detroit I was in the middle of all this wonderful music. I, for the life of me cannot understand how it took this long to see the MC5 and The Stooges get in. What about Mitch Ryder. He was wher "White Soul" began. Ted Nugent has had and still has a major influence on rock guitar players. I suppose politics is part of any process such as this. One would think that people with grudges from the past could at least do something for the "art form" and leave the ego at the door.

Posted by David Krammer on Tuesday, 10.31.06 @ 10:39am

I'm not sure how many people posting have actually been to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but anyone who has been there knows that the inductees are not the only thing displayed in the museum. There are thousands of things to look at, watch, listen to, and appreciate. There are lots of displays that do include many artists that have not yet been inducted, and may never be inducted. The lack of an induction doesn't mean they weren't important in the history of music (not just rock 'n' roll) and it doesn't mean they won't have their place in the museum. However, the Hall of Fame should be just that: a Hall of Fame; the best of the best. Letting in mediocre and less influential artists in is allowing many more artitsts to get in. If the standards are lowered, then any argument could get any artist inducted. If everybody's favorite band got in, then every band in the world would be in. It has to stop somewhere or else the Hall of Fame becomes just a Hall of Music. There are a lot of bands that I love dearly, but some of them simply don't deserve to be in. XTC, The Pixies, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Men at Work, Bad Brains, and Fugazi are some favorites off the top of my head that probably don't deserve to get in. And I'm okay with it. Now I'm sure someone is going to bash some or all of the bands I have just mentioned, which is fine. We're all entitled to our own opinions.

I will concede that the Hall of Fame does tend to favor certain genres over others. Giving a not to the Stooges and Patti Smith would seem to include nearly the entire '70s punk movement, while disco and metal have been largely overlooked. And while I love both Patti Smith and the Stooges, it does seem a bit biased that so many artists from one genre and one movement have gotten in, especially considering how short-lived the movement was. What's to stop them from including Stiff Little Fingers or the Modern Lovers, Television or the Damned? Again, I love what these bands contributed to the era, but they shouldn't all get in. It is quite possibly my favorite period in rock history. But it also tends to be a favorite of rock critics, which many posters above me have pointed out. So while I think the HoF should be selective in who it inducts, the music should be more evenly represented. The answer is not to allow more artists in, but to better balance the artists getting in. And there's still a place in the museum for the eras and movements to include the artists that didn't get inducted. There's my two cents anyway.

Posted by Rob on Wednesday, 11.1.06 @ 10:00am

Can you say "BADFINGER?"

Posted by katrina on Wednesday, 11.8.06 @ 17:35pm

I can say Badfinger, but apparently the HoF can't...

Posted by jake on Wednesday, 11.8.06 @ 17:51pm

Brian, I agree with you and your list. Perhaps the biggest ovesight is Connie Francis. when the Hall was first established many djs felt that she would be among the first to walk in. Now there is some debate whether she is really rock and roll, but Connie's great versatility, I believe, is one of the factors that has prevented her from entering. Yes, she was rock and roll and had the first rock and roll million seller by a female. Many of those already indicted are not rock and roll and many, like Connie, can be classified as pop or as a standard singer. Many do not have the rock/pop hits that Connie has. Connie is credited with internationalizing American music. She was able to survive the Beatle period due to her versatility and her demand for live concerts. This might be another factor that has prevented her entry. She has never even been nominated. Billy Joel and Neil Diamond are also ommissions that should be inducted. Many have debated her ommission for some time now.

Posted by Sal on Friday, 11.24.06 @ 16:20pm

There remains one glaring omission from the list each and every year without fail. This involves Connie Francis being bypassed once again which defies logic. I'm almost willing to accept that she will never get the recognition she deserves for her numerous accomplishments in her 50+ years as a recording artist. Difficult as it might be I've come to the realization the the HOF refuses to acknowledge what a major contributor she was. What is difficult is not knowing why. If that question could be answered perhaps her legions of international fans could also put this to rest. Guys!!! How aboout it?

Posted by Rich on Saturday, 11.25.06 @ 03:12am

Van Halen literally took the 70's rock sound to it's apex in the late 70's and is responsible for leading it down the path to 80's hard/glam rock. David Lee Roth - the best rock and roll screamer of all time - had the rock god/stud factor of Robert Plant, but with ego, flamboyance, and even acrobatics - truly a circus spectacle from which all blonde-haired lead singer / screamers / flamboyant / big-hair rockers were derived. Eddie Van Halen - hmmmmm.... THE BEST! He maximized and popularized a style of guitar neck playing that all hard rockers follow today. All of us who play air guitar (electric, not acoustic) can credit Eddi Van Halen. Their music has always been predicated on having fun, women, and letting loose and never waivered with political or personal statements - they epitomize the fun part of rock and roll. Rock on!!!

Posted by Chuck H on Tuesday, 12.5.06 @ 13:33pm

Oh, and one more thing...
Why in the world isn't the induction ceremony in Cleveland? Why? Move it to it's home. I'm not a big fan of the city, but that's where it should be.

P.S. David Lee, start stretching out - I want to see a jumping splits in the air off the wall of speakers at the ceremony ;)
Running with the Devil, Eruption, Pretty Woman (b/c they are the ultimate cover band - good or bad?), and Jump (because they have to). Sammy is cool, but he can sit in the front row and play air guitar.

P.P.S. Eddie blows Clapton away

Posted by Chuck H on Tuesday, 12.5.06 @ 13:46pm

Regardless of how anti-prog they might have been, the Electric Light Orchestra was extremely popular and influential and deserves a spot in the Hall.

Posted by Dan on Friday, 12.15.06 @ 14:06pm

You people are nuts. RUSH is great. Listen to the music. The intricate bass lines and time signatures, the amazing percussion and culturally and socially relevant lyrics. I'd love to know what you people who think RUSH & YES is crap are listening to. Duran Duran? Huey Lewis? Give me a friggin break. The lovin spoonful is in the hall, but Rush isn't? The Rock Hall is a sham for that very reason.

Posted by Jeb on Thursday, 02.1.07 @ 10:17am

Rush belongs on the garbage heap with Yes, Huey Lewis, Duran Duran and Kiss. Plus they are Canadian which is enough reason to leave them out of the HoF. Rush blows, face it...

Posted by jake on Wednesday, 02.7.07 @ 08:06am

"Rush belongs on the garbage heap with Yes, Huey Lewis, Duran Duran and Kiss."

It is amazing how stupid and ignorant people can be. For starters I was reading this whole thread. One point, Rock and Roll I love, but it will never compare to the standards of truly great music, like Jazz and classical. It will NEVER. As someone said above, it is music for the masses to make lots of money for record execs and the bands. As I have said before, my dad was a professional musician, studied at NYU school of music, taught music (piano) and played in a professional band, etc. Back in the 60's his group had a single hit in Canada and the US. The joke back then was that it was so easy to develop a "hit" that the song was nothing more than "Tequila" backwards. My dad has told me this story on a many of occasion -

the Beatles hits for Gods sake are brilliant and catchy, but they are mostly one or two chords!

The point is he would refer to rock music as the "McDonalds" of music. Basically, if you want "fine" dining you are not going to get in the rock genre. Sure, Rock is important and influential, but so is "McDonalds" - to stick with the analogy.

So, Kit and the rest of you, if you want to call Rush shit music, fine, but it is all "Rock"...So, in the same vain, shove that talentless music you call Punk up your ass :-) I mean get real, acting as if "Punk" like the VU or Sex Pistols is so deep and talented and meaningful - remember that is McDonalds too.....

As for people calling Rush bad or sucks, answer the following:

1) How do they have the 5th most consecutive gold albums in rock history?

2) Why did the RRHOF name The Spirit of Radio in the TOP 500 most influential rock songs?

3) Why is 2112 listed in the "Definitive 200" list of the most influential and popular rock albums of all time?

4)Why is Rush cited by hundreds of bands as an influence, including the most famous, I think, which I have said before: Metallica cites Rush as an influence on the liner notes of one their albums...can't deny that one, now can you?

5) Nearly 35 years into their career, they are still selling lots of CD's and on a tour now all over Europe and the US - if they are "so bad", how do they do this?

Bottom line, if you do not like Rush due to Lee's voice, that is understandable or if you do not like a "progressive" sound - fine again, understandable. But, try not to make it personal and acknowlege the reality and truth:

Longevity - Check
Record Sales - Check
Concert Sales - Check
Influence - Check
Innovation - Check
Talented Musicians - Check

And, please no responses that say only Rush "sucks" or simply denying facts...please, enough of that crap already. And, again, shove the Punk up your arses!! :-)

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 19:46pm

Anon, that is such a narrow, myopic, and just plain boring way to look at things that you might as well just pack it in and not listen to music.

Posted by Kit on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 22:08pm

I'm serious, if musicicianship is all that matters to you watch your local orchestra and applaud politely. I'll be listening to Husker Du's Flip Your Wig and feel every emotion overcome me at once.

Posted by Kit on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 22:14pm

Whoooshhh...over your head

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 22:23pm

"I'll be listening to Husker Du's Flip Your Wig and feel every emotion overcome me at once."

What emotion would that be? Rage, anger....you know, if you are looking for that, just get married.

You gotta love Punk's constant and annoying fast paced rhythm guitar sections on virtually every song...it is all the same and so fuckin predictable...

BTW, implying that classical music cannot elicit emotion is plain dumb....and not true.

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 22:33pm

Anon, that is such a narrow, myopic, and just "plain boring way to look at things that you might as well just pack it in and not listen to music."

It is not narrow, just factually true about music. It does not mean that rock does not have its place, but it comes in third...sorry. BTW, rock is number one to me...but I realize its place in history.

You are bing narrow minded. Rock has been around for a brief period relative to Jazz and classical music. Actually, my view is much more encompassing.

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 22:40pm

"What emotion would that be? Rage, anger...."

Holy balls. I'll just let the ignorance on that speak for itself. Really, this is a new low.

Posted by Kit on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 22:51pm

Kit, give us all a break....so when your {insert any punk band here} is playing that powerful, monotonous rhythm guitars with the moshing and head bobbing, you are feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, and peacful...there is not just a tinge of anger and rage, c'mon, admit it......own it baby, own it.....god, you make it sound like anger is a bad thing

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 07.2.07 @ 23:10pm

If you don't know what Husker Du sound like, you could just say so.

Oh, and the Classical period blows. Baroque is where it's at, foo.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 10:24am

I have heard husker du....and they are mediocre, unless you like monotonous, fast playing rhythym guitar section through out virtually every song.

Oh, Classical blows...well, okay if William of the "I work in a music store" says so, then it must be true :-)

Posted by Anon on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 14:20pm

Way to miss the point. People who say "classical music" without specifically referencing the Classical period are stupid because it's not one sound or one time period. I thought mentioning Baroque might make that clear.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 14:53pm

NO, You missed the point (I saw what you attempted. Everyone associates "clasical" music with the likes of Mozart,Tchaikovsky, etc. You missed the "point." It was not a discussion at all about the subtle nuances within the classical genre, you made it about that to appear more knowledgable.

The point was that Rock is simply not on par with music that has been around for hundreds of years and is way more complex. I was not even saying that I like classical music...but, see, I look at ALL music and see the big picture...unlike Willam from the "music store." Will that be cash or charge?

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 15:44pm

Oh, right, complexity=brilliance. My bad.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 19:00pm

More knowledgeable? You said something stupid. Regardless of whether I said anything or nothing, you would still be stupid.

Now why don't you go write a poem and not attribute it to yourself.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 20:39pm

Complexity does not equal brilliance. As usual you are making things up. I never said that at all. Simple things can be brilliant. However, what I was saying is that any knowledgable person on music in general would readily agree that rock is music for the masses and is simply not on par with classical music or jazz. It is not as if I have a vested interest in saying it and in fact I would take rock any day over both of the other genres - but, it is just true that rock is not as respected as the other two genres. I once even saw an interview with Paul Simon and he was asked this very question - and he basically said that "rock" is catching up, and gaining more respect...but is not on par...but you know, what could Paul Simon know over Kit, or William, the "music store" guy.

If you think otherwise so be it....now William, why don't you quit the music store and go work at McDonalds. For someone as unaccomlished as you who works at a "music store" you really are a cocky bastard. Unfortunately, for you, you really have nothing to back it up....

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 07.3.07 @ 22:17pm

I realize that you think mentioning where I work will somehow "get to me," but it's just a job. I, like most people, enjoy having money, and until food, shelter, and college all become free, having a job is very convenient.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 00:02am

I hold up a cardboard sign by the freeway on ramp that reads WILL WORK FOR FOOD, and I am pretty secure about my musical opinions.... so William has a freaking Ph.D in rock perspective by my standards.

Posted by shawn mc on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 01:28am

"The point was that Rock is simply not on par with music that has been around for hundreds of years and is way more complex."

"As usual you are making things up. I never said that at all."

In conclusion, not even Anonymous reads what he types, so why should we?

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 01:41am

Classical music IS way more complex than rock -if u cannot see that, then you are not too bright. As you would say, you outed yourself as rock "fanboy." And, the point here is that YOU just took it one step further and typed in some strange formula complexity=brilliance. Which of course I never said...

Oh, yeah, kit cannot read what he writes

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 04:11am

"I realize that you think mentioning where I work will somehow "get to me,"

Why did ya respond?

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 04:14am

"so William has a freaking Ph.D in rock perspective by my standards."

One, stop with the ass kissing.

Two, William has a Ph.D. in oppositional defiant disorder...if you don't believe me, just persuse the various posts here in which he tries to "one up" everyone.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 05:56am

This is a great quote that summarizes my point.

"Few people would argue that the Goldberg variations or the Titan Symphony are not more sophisticated than a three-minute pop song in structure, melodic and harmonic elements, and in the musicality required to perform them. As people learn more about crafting music, they generally find that the classics are respected for good reason. This is familiar to us from, say, Shakespeare, whose plays, while requiring more work to understand than an episode of Seinfeld, are rewarding to scholars and audiences alike."

And further:

"Classical music survives, again like classic literature, because it manages from generation to generation to find new listeners. The audience is not large in comparison to that for pop music, but people from many cultures continue to listen to Bach and Beethoven and Brahms hundreds of years after their works were composed, suggesting that there is something universally appealing about these works. Pop music often appeals primarily to the generation that created it, often because it has emotional overtones that are not apparent to listeners from other generations."

And still:

"But the same can be said of jazz audiences. In a couple of ways, jazz is the inheritor of the musicality of the classical composers, who were all outstanding improvisers and who, like jazz players, frequently worked by taking a comparatively simple melody and exploring what they could do with it."

I love rock music too and it is my preferred choice of music, but I can readily admit, along with Paul Simon, that it is simply not on par with other genres. And, like my father said, who was a trained musician, it is the "McDonalds" of music...lastly, this is not a "narrow" view, but a much more encompassing view in that I am looking at ALL musical genres, not just rock.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 06:23am

"Few people would argue that the Goldberg variations or the Titan Symphony are not more sophisticated than a three-minute pop song in structure, melodic and harmonic elements, and in the musicality required to perform them."

Few People would argue?....Except for Kit and William who know better :-) LOL, LOL

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 06:37am

So because you can quote a few snippets from a smart person's article you fancy yourself an expert on "classical" music? Please.

There were trash composers as well. Ask yourself why people rate Beethoven above his contemporaries who were, at the time, more popular.

The part about "classic literature" isn't even a decent parallel because what is contemporary now might be "classic" in the future. Pop music doesn't stand an equal chance of becoming orchestral.

In summation, get some goddam chamber rock.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 07:48am

I am far from an "expert" on classical, which is why I quoted somone else..but, I just know its place in history relative to rock and pop...that much I know.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 09:28am

Yeah, but see, we're not talking about classical. Classical was music comissioned by rich people in honor of themselves. Rock is populist music for the audience of the artist's choosing. Rock isn't as complex as classical, but it's better because there are no limits as to where it goes, what it can use, or who can listen.

Again, you cite music as better because it's more complex musically and then you say that you never said complexity was important to you. Please, pick one stupid argument and stick with it.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 11:50am

Rock may be "better" to you because it has mass appeal and more flexibility. However, all I was trying to say is that Clasical and Jazz from a "purist" point of view are superior forms of music b/c they are 1) way more complex, 2) more difficult to construct, 3) and more difficult to play. Any jazz musician could play any rock song, but not vice versa. Like I said, most Beatles hits are one or two chord songs. Hey, but I agree, that has its place and I like it too.

Plus, you finally agree with me, saying that "Rock is populsit music." That is absolutely correct and of course does not negate its contributions to music as a whole. I apologize for "putting down" rock, and insulting your fragile ego - I realize that your identity and self-worth is intimately tied to rock music, especially those "underground" bands.

BTW, complexity is sometimes important to me and sometimes is not, depending upon my mood. Sometimes I like to listen to more complex music when I am in the "mood", but sometimes straightforward rocking guitar is all I need. Honestly, it is often hard to convey what you you want to say on these blogs. I was in no way trying to be contradictory. Don't be so black and white...sometimes things are more "complex."

In any event, I think the dead horse has been beaten enough on this one....

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 12:58pm

"I apologize for "putting down" rock, and insulting your fragile ego - I realize that your identity and self-worth is intimately tied to rock music, especially those "underground" bands"

Even when you "apologize", you can't help getting a snide remark in. Honestly, where have I said or implied anything like that?

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 14:15pm

"One, stop with the ass kissing."

You're a misanthropic retard Anon. Seriously, do you run seminars on how to alienate your peers for fun and profit?
I was making a lightherated, even self-efacing joke to try to deflect some of the tension you created; but you snarl at me and bring out that "ass kissing" bat again? Way to throw your feces at the opportunity to save face.

Presently I can't decide which is more pathetic to behold: the way you flash us all and then tell us we are seeing things, or your clumsy attempt to be supercilious by laughing like a bratty 2nd grader at how someone earns their money.

I've told you this before Anon - you're not nearly smart enough to condescend to anyone here... so why not cut your losses and shut your cramhole.

Your original point is pretty damn convoluted, but from what I can gather you were telling Rush naysayers to lay off by the twisted logic that if Rush is bad, then all of rock is bad (esp punk geres, apparantly?), because it's all ultimately just second rate due to its simplicity. If you were unprepared to defend that view, then perhaps you shouldn't have given voice to the random madness in your head.

Posted by shawn mc on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 19:21pm

Actually, shawn what I was saying had nothing to do with Rush. Actually, I was responding to someone named Gary who had posted above something that resonated with me (Yes, Shawn there are other people on this site who have opinions, other than myself, you, William and Kit). Gary said:

This isn't Mozart or Beethoven, it is music for the masses. Sorry to those R&R snobs who feel that it is an insult to have Kiss next to Jimi Hendrix, and that Husker Du is a seminal band, but Mellencamp just made basic rock, but you need to get off of your high horses (as does Dave Marsh, Jan Wenner and the rest of the nominating committee). The Stones said it best, "It's Only Rock n Roll, but I Like It"

I was merely continuing with this line of thought, that was it. It was nothing more...as for the insults, I think WE are ALL guilty of that. But, the points I made are factually true. I can readily admit that Rush,, yes my "favorite" band is not on par for a number of reasons to the jazz and classical giants. Even Neil Peart has admitted this. My point was that people like Kit and William are so caught up in the "indie" acts and have their noses in the air about it. But, the fact is, whether it is the Velvet Underground or Rush, your eatin' at Micky D's.

Remember though, obviosuly that does not make clasical music or jazz "better" in terms of personal taste - that is something to be experienced and decided upon by the listener. Like I was saying above, I was merely analyzing it from a "purist" viewpoint. Like most debates, you end up where you started:

"It's Only Rock n Roll, but I Like It"

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 20:05pm

Once again, Nonny, get you some chamber rock. Hardly simple stuff, typically instrumental, and frequently jazz and Classical-influenced with just a dash of the avante-garde. I would hardly accuse a band like Iceburn, comprised entirely of Classically trained musicians, of being "McDonald's music," and yet I also don't find them immensely boring like many "progressive" acts (and before you say anything, I'm not specifically referencing your precious Rush). I'm actually curious as to how long instrumental songs with traditional symphonic instruments that really only differ from Classical music in that they place added importance on guitar can be considered in your analogy at all. I don't think you thought it through all the way.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 20:33pm

Again, it was just a general comment and nothing more. I think there has been enough said on the topic....

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 07.4.07 @ 23:00pm

For the life of me, I can not understand why Ms Connie Francis has never even considered to be inducted into the R&C hall of fame. Maybe her downfall was being a gorgous woman, unbelievable talent, and that unique contralto voice. As a lover of great music, from the late '50's to the present, Ms. platinum pipes has been one of the best talents tapped and recorded. I await for one good (I would settle on logical) reason why she slipped through the cracks. (Oh No...was she blacklisted by McCarthy?)

Posted by Michael on Sunday, 07.8.07 @ 23:10pm

every girl on the planet in the late 80 s wanted to be pat benatar - her music was eveywhere - her name is not even considered ?????

Posted by golfer on Wednesday, 08.1.07 @ 06:38am

This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.