The 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees

The 2008 Inductees are:

"The 2008 inductees are trailblazers -- all unique and influential in their genres," Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation President and CEO Joel Peresman said in a written statement. "From poetry to pop, these five acts demonstrate the rich diversity of rock and roll itself. We are proud to honor these artists and celebrate their contribution to rock and roll's place in our culture."

Additionally, Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff will be inducted in the Non-Performer category (now called the Ahmet Ertegun Award). The Sideman category has also been resurrected this year with blues harmonica player Little Walter winning the award.

Artists who didn't make the cut this year were first time nominees Afrika Bambaataa, the Beastie Boys, and Donna Summer. Chic has been nominated four times without induction.

Long time eligible artists, but first time nominees, Leonard Cohen (eligible since 1993) and The Ventures (since 1985) were eagerly inducted once the voters had the chance to honor them.

The Rock Hall voters were not as quick to induct Chic and Donna Summer, two artists with major disco credentials, nor did they want to honor hip hop this year, by rejecting the Beastie Boys and Afrika Bambaataa. This sends a clear message to the Nominating Committee that the 500+ Rock Hall voters want to see more traditional "rock" artists on the ballot.

For a look at who is going to eligible for next year's induction, check out the 2008 list here, with The Smiths, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Bon Jovi, and Run DMC as the lead contenders.

Full press release below:

THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME ANNOUNCES ITS INDUCTEES FOR 2008

New York -- The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation today announced its inductees for 2008. The inductees will be honored at a ceremony on March 10, 2008, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.

"The 2008 inductees are trailblazers - all unique and influential in their genres," said Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation President and CEO Joel Peresman. "From poetry to pop, these five acts demonstrate the rich diversity of rock and roll itself. We are proud to honor these artists and celebrate their contribution to rock and roll's place in our culture."

The performer inductees are:

  • Leonard Cohen
  • The Dave Clark Five (Dave Clark, Lenny Davidson, Rick Huxley, Denis Payton and Mike Smith)
  • Madonna
  • John Mellencamp
  • The Ventures (Bob Bogle, Nokie Edwards, Gerry McGee, Mel Taylor, Don Wilson)

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame also announced the induction of Little Walter in its sideman category, and the newly named "Ahmet Ertegun Award" (formerly the non-performer category) will be presented to legendary producers, Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff.

The 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performer inductees were chosen by the 600 voters of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. Artists are eligible for inclusion in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twenty-five years after their first recording is released.

In addition to being honored at the March ceremony, each inducted artist is commemorated at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland Ohio, which serves as a monument to rock and roll's impact on our culture. There, this year's inductees will be honored - along with previous year's inductees and hundreds of other artists - with exhibits, video and interactive presentations and programs that serve to tell the story of modern music. The Hall of Fame itself will include artifacts from this year's inductees, a multi-media presentation with highlights from each artist's career and their signatures permanently engraved in the glass walls of the Hall of Fame.

Presenters and performers at the induction will be announced at a later date. The induction ceremony will again air live on VH1 Classic on March 10, 2008.

More about the inductees:

With the 1966 release of In My Life by Judy Collins, containing Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne" and "Dress Rehearsal Rag," Cohen became a folk rock icon of the singer songwriter movement. Already an acclaimed poet and novelist in his native Canada, Cohen moved to New York in 1967 and released his classic album Songs of Leonard Cohen on Columbia Records. Its music launched Leonard Cohen into the highest and most influential echelon of songwriters. Cohen's elegiac work is widely used in film and covered by artists from Jeff Buckley to Bono to Bob Dylan to R.E.M. As Kurt Cobain said, "Give me a Leonard Cohen afterworld so I can sigh eternally."

One of the most successful British Invasion bands of the Sixties, The Dave Clark Five topped the UK charts in 1965 with their iconic pop song "Glad All Over." Thundering production set the DC5 apart. Their slick melodic sensibility masked their boom factor: The DC5 were the loudest group in the U.K. until the advent of The Who. Drummer, songwriter and manager Dave Clark provided a perfect foundation for Mike Smith's soulful vocals. Reaching the Top Forty 17 times in just three years, with more appearances on the Ed Sullivan show than the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, the DC5 were an enormous pop phenomenon before disbanding in 1970. The Dave Clark Five have sold more than 50 million records worldwide to date.

Doors opened wide for Madonna Louise Ciccone in 1982, after five years as a singer and dancer on New York City's competitive club circuit. She signed with Sire Records (her label for the next 14 years) where her idiosyncratic persona exploded onto turntables, dance floors and airwaves and captured the imagination of the first generation of MTV viewers. She went on to become the top female star of the 1980s with seven #1 hits, three #1 albums and seventeen top ten hits in that decade. In addition to molding her public image, Madonna is a meticulous studio craftsperson and completely uninhibited stage performer. From her first #1, 1984's "Like A Virgin" (produced by Nile Rogers of Chic) to her most recent two year Confessions campaign, Madonna remains one of the most ferociously original artists in music today.

Over the course of his career, John Mellencamp has become a symbol of the hopes, struggles and passions of America's heartland. As a songwriter, many of his efforts have transcended "hit" status ("Hurts So Good," "Pink Houses," "I Need A Lover") and have entered the cultural vernacular. Mellencamp's musical heart is in his ballads and rock numbers rooted in late 50s and early 60s rock and roll. His music describes the American experience; the hopes and fears of the common everyman. As co-founder of Farm Aid, Indiana's favorite son gives voice to issues that might otherwise be ignored, from our disappearing farmlands to the role of race and class in America.

From Seattle, The Ventures defined instrumental guitar rock in the 1960s. Their hits bookended the decade, from 1960's "Walk Don't Run" to 1969's "Hawaii Five-O." Nokie Edwards' twang-guitar and the crisp rhythm of Don Wilson, bassist Bob Bogle and drummer Mel Taylor gave every Ventures album their trademark bent note sound. Long admired by other bands like the Beatles (and especially George Harrison), Stephen Stills, Joe Walsh, Aerosmith, and others, The Ventures hit the Billboard chart nearly three dozen times in the 1960s. The transparent stereo mixes enabled guitarists to isolate and learn every riff, an idea that fueled 1965's essential instruction LP Play Guitar With The Ventures. Founders of surf rock, The Ventures inspired a classic line of Mosrite guitars and have maintained a flourishing touring and recording career for decades, especially in Europe and Japan.

Little Walter (May 1, 1930 - February 15, 1968) Although Little Walter might not have been the first person to amplify the harmonica, his pioneering use of the microphone helped establish the modern blues harmonica. With a mike clasped to his harp, Little Walter created echoing, moaning, hornlike sounds that redefined the capabilities of the instrument. Walter Jacobs had fourteen top ten hits on the R&B charts in the 1950's including two number #1 songs "Juke" and "My Babe." Little Walter toured and recorded extensively with blues great Muddy Waters in the 1950's. He also recorded with Jimmy Rogers, Memphis Minnie, Otis Rush and Bo Diddley. Little Walter's influence was pervasive, especially in England where the next generation of harp players such as Mick Jagger listened to his records over and over.

Songwriters-producers and record label owners Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff made Philadelphia the soul capitol in the 1970's. Gamble and Huff's label Philadelphia International had a stable of artists that included the O'Jays, McFadden & Whitehead, Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, Lou Rawls and Dee Dee Sharp. Their records featured the duo's trademark sound: lush string orchestrations, a powerful rhythm section and a disco beat. They also worked with Dusty Springfield, Wilson Pickett, and Jerry Butler among others. In 1990, Gamble and Huff won a Grammy for best R&B song, awarded for Simply Red's cover of the Blue Notes' 1972 hit "If You Don't Know Me By Know." And in 1999, they won the Grammy Trustees Award.






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.

Comments

380 comments so far (post your own)

Your 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees:

Leonard Cohen
The Dave Clark Five
Madonna
John Mellencamp
The Ventures

more to come...

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 07:50am


This was somewhat a surprise. I expected Madonna and Mellencamp (even before Mellencamp's own preemptive announcement). The Dave Clark 5 makes sense to make up for last year's scandal, although I don't agree with their induction. Leonard Cohen is a surprise, and I am glad to see him in there. I'm also glad to see The Ventures get it. As a guitar player myself, I know how influential they are on other players.

The Beasties will eventually get in, I wouldn't worry about that. I was glad Donna Summer and Chic didn't make it, although I would have liked to see Afrika Bambaata.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 07:54am


The Ventures! It's about time! They are more than just great musicians, they are a brother- hood. They have also done so much for American- Japanese relations and won an important award for that 2 years ago. The Ventures have been such a great influence on guitarists for 50 years now, are still recording, writing and touring. Thanks to all the session people who helped them over the years, including David Gates, Leon Russell, Larry Taylor, Glen Campbell and many others! The Ventures should have been inducted at the HOF's initial induction years ago, but am very happy to see them as 2008 inductees!

MICHAEL KUHN
Ventures USA Fan Club President Emeritus

Posted by MICUS on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:10am


Well, I called the Beasties' snub, but I'm very surprised that Donna Summer didn't make it, since she has much more name recognition than the Ventures.

I also want to point out that this is the Class of 2008 and they are inducting not one but two bands from the early 1960's. You might even count Cohen as a 1960's artist as well. So much for relevance.

Posted by A-Killa on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:11am


I also, also want to point out that on the Rock Hall's official web site, there is nothing whatsoever about the inductees being announced today. Shows you where their priorities are.

Posted by A-Killa on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:36am


How old are these voters? I would love to know how many of them have actually listened to a Beastie Boys record.

Posted by c.w. on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:37am


I've got to admit, I'm surprised that the Beastie Boys didn't get in, but I'm not really disappointed.

The voters snubbing the 2 rappers and 2 disco artists will hopefully send a strong message to those dinosaurs in the nomination committee.

Posted by Freduardo on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:40am


No Beastie Boys... that's too bad. Their influence on the current music landscape seems incalculable.

Posted by Sarah on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:43am


Congratulations to MADONNA!

She really deserves this....no one works harder or has produced consistent good work...VIVA LA DIVA.

Posted by K on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:43am


Just a note for Sarah, you have to remember that this is a ROCK AND ROLL Hall of Fame, and while the Beastie Boys are certainly deserving of being enshrined somewhere, it shouldn't be here. Although it is a tricky question, because many rap artists have had a lot of influence on todays musical stuff.

However, before they start moving to other genres, the Hall needs to finish honouring the bona fide rock genres.

Posted by A moron (AKA Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Nominating Committee member) on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:47am


"..this is the Class of 2008 and they are inducting not one but two bands from the early 1960's. You might even count Cohen as a 1960's artist as well. So much for relevance." A-Killa

Relevance?
Is there some statute of limitation on historical presence that I am unaware of? Your logic says that artists who are newly eligible scream for induction NOW over anyone older - or do you have some arbitarry date (1970?..1980?) before which artists "expire"?
If you have a grievance of an individual artist getting in over another, that's one thing, but to cry foul simply because of the decade they are from seems to lack relevance to me.

I think that the surprising complete exclusions of Donna Summer, Chic, The Beasties and Bambaata demonstrates something I agree with - the Hall is fast forwarding to disco and rap too soon; there are way too many artists still left in previous decades, long time eligibles, to be glibly and arbitrarily focusing on rap and disco.

Do The Ventures, DC5 and Cohen deserve to be the ones from the far past chosen? I don't know and that's not my point.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:48am


I can't wait to see Leonard Cohen jamming with The Ventures and the Dave Clark Five at the end of the ceremony! Not to be missed!

Posted by c.w. on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:55am


So happy that Chic and Donna Summer are not in.
I think it is a good induction class knowing who were nominated.
The Beastie Boys will probably be inducted in the next few years and Bambaataa would deserve it but I think it is quite normal for them not to be inducted on their first year.

Posted by roméo on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 11:09am


Well...the Beasties was a surprise, but it does make sense. This isn't the 25th anniversary of Licensed to Ill...it's the 25th anniversary of their hardcore punk tapes. They'll make it in a couple of years. Metallica will be a lock next year as it is their 25th anniversary of Kill 'Em All. John Mellencamp was probably necessary...and Leonard Cohen was a surprise.

Anyways though, the band better begin inducting more than 5 each day cause the backlogged list is getting too big. They need to start accepting progressive rock bands and some more metal bands quickly before they get tagged with more criticism.

Posted by maplejet on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 12:18pm


"Relevance?
Is there some statute of limitation on historical presence that I am unaware of? Your logic says that artists who are newly eligible scream for induction NOW over anyone older - or do you have some arbitarry date (1970?..1980?) before which artists "expire"?"-shawn

Say what? You took a big leap away from what he said and presumably meant, which was simply that we're not recognizing the accomplishments of any of the "younger" artists (many of whom are already in their forties and fifties), and that we're just not keeping up to date. He didn't say anything about giving "preference" to brand-new eligibles, nor anyhing about music "expiring." Don't just make crap up.

Anyway, here's my question: If you already have to be between 30 and 40 years old to get in, what's the point of making the minimum 25? Why sit around just being "eligible" for 5 to 15 years and not having anything done about it?

Posted by William on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 12:40pm


No Beastie Boys? Grandmaster Flash made it? Where are Hall & Oates? Jann Wenner is a homo.

Posted by john bull on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 14:08pm


"The induction ceremony will again air live on 'VH1 Classic' on March 10, 2008."

I think that about sums up the fuckin' insigificance of the rock hall of fame.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 16:34pm


It's aired on VH1 Classic before, and on VH! in the past (but not live). The ceremony didn't even air at all prior to a few years back.

Congrats to the most important female performer of the last 25 years- now a member of both the UK and USA Hall of Fame.

Of course, some in the media will be harping, "She's not rock"- they seriously need to get over it. Rock and roll R& is a general term, meant to encompass all genres of music to develop throughout the curse of the rock era.

Posted by JR on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 16:49pm


On the website at:
http://www.rateitall.com/t-2529-deserving-of-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame.aspx
you can vote for your favorite artists that are eligible but have been overlooked by the R&R HoF.
The # indicates where these artists were on the voting results at the time of their induction announcement.
The Ventures #6
Madonna #13
Dave Clark 5 #32
John Mellencamp #50
Leonard Cohen #204

The current top 20 vote-getters are:
1.Rush
2. Yes
3. Stevie Ray Vaughan
4. Deep Purple
5. Genesis
6. Alice Cooper
7. Jethro Tull
8. Neil Diamond
9. Chicago
10. Moody Blues
11. Pete Townshend (solo)
12. The Cars
13. Dire Straits
14. Duran Duran
15. Joe Cocker
16. Heart
17. The Hollies
18. Peter Gabriel (solo)
19. Los Lobos
20. Steve Miller

Posted by Garrett on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 18:06pm


"Say what? You took a big leap.." - William

Why would the relevance of a year's inductions hinge on the age of those inductees, i.e., the proximity of their first recording to our current year?
Why should "keeping up to date" come into the consideration equation at all? Merit is merit, right? Doesn't that trump any preoccupation with ushering in "younger" acts, when we wiegh relevance? Am I not understanding your point?

I agree that 25 years is an unneccesarily long gestation period; you know after 15 years if an artist is significant most of the time.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 22:40pm


At least one of the biggest omissions (Cohen) is now the holder of a throne in rock's not-so golden palace. Of course, this comes at the expense of the unworthy Dave Clark Five and Mellencamp being given the same red carpet.

Posted by Casper on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 02:18am


I can't take the RRHofF seriously until they induct Rush.

Posted by Kat on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 04:47am


When you read that list above, it simply a joke of who has not been inducted to the hall, some of which I am not a fan at all, but could readily admit their influence and importance in rock (Yes, Jethro Tull, Rush, Deep Purple, Genesis, Moody Blues, SRV). Maybe next year!

Posted by Matzo Ball on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 05:55am


"Why would the relevance of a year's inductions hinge on the age of those inductees, i.e., the proximity of their first recording to our current year?
Why should "keeping up to date" come into the consideration equation at all? Merit is merit, right? Doesn't that trump any preoccupation with ushering in "younger" acts, when we wiegh relevance?"-shawn

Legitimate questions, although if you had asked them in the first place rather than jumping all over the guy, I wouldn't have had a problem. Anyway let me try to answer them.

Firstly, if we're not keeping up with the times, then why have the museum in the first place? Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself? The purpose of the hall in theory is to recognize those artists who made music what it is today and what it will be in the future, but if there's a thirty-some-odd-year gap between them and us, how exactly are you showing that progression? I realize they can't be on the absolute cutting edge, nor do I expect it, but it's telling that they can't keep up with their own arbitrary criteria.

Regarding merit, do you not think it's possible that some of the younger musicians might have as much or more, and that a large part of the outcry is in response to them being snubbed in favor of older musicians simply BECAUSE they're older? Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?

Lastly, I'll restate my earlier point that a lot of the "younger" acts are really not that young anymore. Kim Gordon is 54. She'll be eligible for Social Security before long. Just saying I'd hate to only be getting around to inducting the "young" guys by the time they're senior citizens.

Posted by William on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 07:09am


as long as u got DC4 off the dam ballot thats fine

Posted by martin on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 07:48am


The Ventures, Leonard Cohen, DC5, Gamble/Huff and Little Walter deserve induction into the Hall of Fame for their great contributions to Rock and Roll. The other 2 names for whom I don't want to mention are posers and corporate sellouts and shouldn't receive their honors.

Posted by James on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:11am


For 2009 I'd like to see the following

Steve Miller
Doobie Brothers
Jethro Tull
Yes
Moody Blues
Deep Purple

and as sidemen I'd like
Andy Fairweater Low (Clapton, Dave Edmunds, Roger Waters, and countless other artists)
Bernard Purdie (Steely Dan, countless blues and jazz artists)
Joe Morello( drummer on Dave Brubeck's "Take 5"
perfecting 5/4 beat)
Willie Weeks (bass on Stones' It's Only RnR, and Joe Walsh's Life's Been Good)

Now that's a RNR HOF for you.

Posted by Richard on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:21am


"You might even count Cohen as a 1960's artist as well."

Incorrect. Cohen has released at least two records every decade since the 60's; his latest was in 2004. Many of his best songs were recorded long after the 60's ("The Guests"--1979; "Hallelujah"-1984; "Everybody Knows" and "Tower of Song"--1988; "The Future"--1993; "In My Secret Life"--2001).

I am so pleased he is being recognized. He and Dylan are the true poets of RNR.

Posted by The King on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:50am


I "strangely" get the feeling that all four rejected artists will be returning next year...they'll probably throw in Run DMC as well just to ensure that Disco/Hip Hop have at least a solitary inductee.

Next year's ballot:

Afrika Bambaataa
Beastie Boys
Chic
Donna Summer
Joy Division (Thanks to the Ian Curtis biopic)
Metallica
Run DMC
Stevie Ray Vaughn
The Stooges (Returning after a brief rest period)

Voters will induct the bottom five.

Posted by Casper on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 17:05pm


I think The Stooges will return to the final ballot next year.

Posted by David on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 18:22pm


Such a shame that the Hall robbed Donna Summer, a major player in shaping American music. Her abilities are phenominal and repertoire quite exceptional and diverse. Madonna before Donna really makes a statement that the Hall becomes more of a joke every year. Donna can sing rings around Madonna and paved the way for current female "singers." Guess she joins many other overlooked non-inductees.

Posted by Tom on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 18:39pm


Tom, I agree that Donna Summer should be in the HOF, but let's not take away from what Madonna has accompished and what she's meant. We know the HOFD isn't just about the music, but also the overall impact, and few have had as much impact as Madonna with what they've done in their work.

Many of us would have loved to see a Madonna-Donna duet on I Feel Love/Future Lovers. :) (probably wouldn't have happened if DS made it in, but one can imagine. hehe)

Posted by JR on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 21:15pm


Casper, I'd agree with your bottom 3 likelies -
1)- Stooges, for the 7th try
2)- Metallica
3)- SRVaughn

but after the complete rope off of the rap and disco artists this year, I'd guess they will pick between the Beasties again and Run DMC, but not try both.
so 4)- Run DMC OR Beasties

Also would not expect to see Afrika Bambaata or Donna Summer again for a while - nomination may very well be their only honor.

Would expect them not to try to shove Chic down voters throats consecutive years, don't ya think?

Joy Division? Would be a delightful shock to see them open up their minds to that shade of the post-punk category, but you're wishin' on a star there, pally-wally.

Don't you think if the Hall dared to dab their fingers finallyinto the "alternative" side of the tracks (goofy as that label is), they'd be more inclined to embrace Sonic Youth or The Replacements? Maybe The Cure, finally?

I really hope their other 5 include at least 3 of the 70's artists still waiting around outside.

Maybe a pleasant surprise individual like Cohen this year - Nick Drake, Brain Eno, Jeff Beck? Big Star?

The Smiths have no chance at all.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 22:37pm


"Incorrect. Cohen has released.. "Tower of Song"--1988.." -king

Incorrect.
Tower of Song is a tribute album of Cohen songs released 1995, performed by various artists (Bono, Don Henely, Billy Joel, Tori Amos, Willie Nelson, Peter Gabriel, Suzanne Vega, Sting, Martin Gore..)

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 22:44pm


My bad, King.
In rereading your post I see you were listing the SONG, "Tower of Song" in 1988, and not the album.
Sorry.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 22:47pm


"..but if there's a thirty-some-odd-year gap between them and us, how exactly are you showing that progression?" - William

So you'd propose that the Hall, ideally, would make sure that each year they try to purposefully amass a thorough cross secton of eras/decades for induction, something similar to the forced segregation of genres I suggested? This would show better historical progression and thus satisfy relevance better?

"Regarding merit, do you not think it's possible that some of the younger musicians might have as much or more,.." -Willaim

Sure, of course. Some certainly do, depending on who you pull out to compare side by side.

"..and that a large part of the outcry is in response to them being snubbed in favor of older musicians simply BECAUSE they're older?" - William

Maybe. I also understand that outcry within reason. Chronological order deserves some regard, I think. By the same token, I don't want to see newer artists take up the nominated slots simply for the novelty of their fresh factor. Neither prejudice is right.

There is a constituancy that feels that there are a lot of artists from the 70's they are missing in the Hall who are being passed over year after year like discarded Halloween candy, and they don't want to hear about The Beasties or Madonna or disco era acts yet. I tend to agree.

This comes down to individual artsist vs individual, regardless of year, doesn't it?

Just out of curiosity William, who would you induct from 1979 or earlier before 1980 and up?
In order, who would be your top 20 inductees - not just t what you want, but what you think is deserved.

"Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?" -William

Not neccesarily at all, and so what anyway? Historical significance... as in what's happened up to today is the reference point for a museum; what you're getting misty about is speculation.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 23:15pm


Next Year:
Metallica
Run DMC
Stevie Ray Vaughn
The Stooges
Hopefully one of the bigger acts still out there (KISS,Chicago,Deep Purple,etc.)

Posted by Gassman on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 23:31pm


Isn't part of the problem with "not keeping up with the times" the fact that there's only 5 inductees per year- yet the same people like "The Stooges" (nominated 4 straight years 04-07) and others keep on being nominated?

Shouldn't there be a rule that if a nominated artist isn't voted in then they can't be renominated for a minimum of 5 years??

And also if the choice is between a newer artist that recently qualifies and an older artist who is still touring and releasing new music then shouldn't that older artist receive higher consideration because of that fact???




Posted by interviewer on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 00:57am


"The Smiths have no chance at all."

Indeed. What with the pressure on the hall to induct disco/rap and other predominantly black music genres, it is most likely that alot of deserving acts (typically late 70s/80s alternative) will be ingnored, and put in much later.

Although I disagree with "no chance at all". People like Interpol owe EVERYTHING to the 80s alternative, and that will work in The Smiths favour.

"Joy Division? Would be a delightful shock to see them open up their minds to that shade of the post-punk category, but you're wishin' on a star there, pally-wally."

No, I think that now, what with the release of Closer, would be the correct time to induct them - the Ian Curtis biopic would raise public interest, and Wenner MIGHT play on this, as there is NO chance of public interest in them again.

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 05:26am


"And also if the choice is between a newer artist that recently qualifies and an older artist who is still touring and releasing new music then shouldn't that older artist receive higher consideration because of that fact???"

Depends. In most cases artists reach a peak of creativity, and then never regain that, so, in most cases, I'd say 'no' to your question.

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 05:46am


"Although I disagree with "no chance at all". (for The Smiths) -liam

No chance their first eliigible year (what would make you think otherwise, what with The Cure never even having been discussed for nomination?
They certainly deserve consideration - but that's an ocean away from getting it from Wenner's World.

Maybe 10 years down the line, but even then without a complete paradigm shift........

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 07:33am


"Maybe 10 years down the line, but even then without a complete paradigm shift........"

I don't know...some Smiths fans can be PRETTY scary at times...

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 07:49am


Next Year's induction

Yes
Rush
Moody Blues
Carole King
Genesis
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Doobie Brothers
Steve Miller
Herman's Hermits
Steve Winwood
Leon Russell
Joe Cocker
Ben E. King
Chubby Checker
Donna Summer


Why the fuck can't they do 10-15 inductees a night like they used to do in the

Posted by Irving on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 08:03am


It's funny that Madonna got inducted for 2008. No offense to Madonna and her music but Donna Summer's music is more rock oriented than Madonna's. Remember, Summer is the recipient of the Grammy's FIRST "Best Rock Vocalist" Category in 1979 for "Hot Stuff". Not to mention that Summer is the only artist in the Rock Era to have 3-consecutive double albums hit #1 in the Billboard Charts from 1978-1980.

Other noteworthy rock artists that SHOULD have been inducted in 2008 are Linda Ronstadt, Pat Benatar and Hall & Oates. My 2 cents!

Posted by DJ on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 09:48am


"So you'd propose that the Hall, ideally, would make sure that each year they try to purposefully amass a thorough cross secton of eras/decades for induction, something similar to the forced segregation of genres I suggested?"-shawn

No. Didn't say that at all. I think they should be keeping up with the deserving eligibles, however. It's not my fault that they're allowing their backlog to swell so much that they have to arbitrarily decide between an older and newer artist when both might be equally worthy.

"Chronological order deserves some regard, I think."-shawn

To a degree, but not when choosing between two musicians who have no direct correlation to one another. It is valid when one of your choices influenced or made possible the achievements of the other, however.

"There is a constituancy that feels that there are a lot of artists from the 70's they are missing in the Hall who are being passed over year after year like discarded Halloween candy, and they don't want to hear about The Beasties or Madonna or disco era acts yet. I tend to agree."-shawn

And some of those people ARE more deserving, but many are less.

"Just out of curiosity William, who would you induct from 1979 or earlier before 1980 and up?"-shawn

Don't feel like listing.

"Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?"-me

"Not neccesarily at all"-shawn

Well of course not across the board. I never claimed that.

"and so what anyway?"-shawn

Because it matters. I could take a newer artist, say the Beasties, which you mentioned, and argue that because their impact is already huge and, because of their continued existence, constantly increasing, and because that influence is evident in a far greater amount of bands today and will likely continue to trickle down for some time, they might deserve induction more than, say, The Dave Clark Five.

"Shouldn't there be a rule that if a nominated artist isn't voted in then they can't be renominated for a minimum of 5 years??"-interviewer

Right, because we don't want The Stooges getting their due anytime soon, right?

Pretty much the only way for the few sensible people on the nominating committee to force through deserving artists that Wenner doesn't absolutely adore is to continually re-nominate them until they either run out of "better" choices to induct or the public outcry over continued snubbing forces them to capitulate (which happens sometime between rarely and never). Why take away that one pitiful check against the voters' almost absolute power?

"And also if the choice is between a newer artist that recently qualifies and an older artist who is still touring and releasing new music then shouldn't that older artist receive higher consideration because of that fact???"-interviewer

How many people do you think were influenced by The Rolling Stones' "A Bigger Bang"? For a band that isn't actively experimenting with its sound, influence gradually declines over time.

Posted by William on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 10:54am


"Don't feel like listing."

What? You wrote a huge posting, yet will not answer Shawn's simple question of listing a few artists. I guess you feel more comfortable saying who should NOT be in rather than who you DO want in.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 11:08am


"What? You wrote a huge posting, yet will not answer Shawn's simple question of listing a few artists."-Matzo Ball

Because it's a pain in the ass, it compromises my principle that influence and innovation trump all other factors (including sales and chronological order), and all it will do is invite dissenters to chew on my ass for getting the list "wrong" in their eyes. But if it'll shut you up (and I know it won't), I'd say Captain Beefheart, MC5, The Stooges, Kraftwerk, and Nick Drake. Off the top of my head, those are the only ones from pre-'79 that are must-haves before anything else (although that has more to do with their inherent importance than with the fact that they happened to be hanging around earlier than guys like Sonic Youth). There might be a couple more I've forgotten, and as I said I'm sure everyone and his brother will give me hell for what I didn't include, but there it is.

"I guess you feel more comfortable saying who should NOT be in rather than who you DO want in."-Matzo Ball

Piss off, troll.

Posted by William on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 11:23am


Me: The affirmative action for younger acts proposal.

"No. Didn't say that at all. I think they should be keeping up with the deserving eligibles, however." - William

I know you didn't - I was just putting a pragmatic suggestion out there on how to ensure they might keep up ---- can I assume you don't like the idea of mandating a spectrum of eras, or will that just get me another "I never said that" retort?

"Chronological order deserves some regard, I think."-me

"To a degree, but not when choosing between two musicians who have no direct correlation to one another." -William

Really? You think seniority isn't relevant when you're comparing two artists of (theoretically) equal merit in their respective categories, one born before the other, perhaps by 10+ years; chronology doesn't bear some deference?

Further than that, you don't feel any nagging dissatisfaction from worthy 70's era artists ignored while the Hall move onward ever onward to 1980+?

"And some of those people ARE more deserving (*from 1979 back), but many are less." -William

And so that was my only reason for asking you who you miss from '79 prior - wasn't for novelty - I had a point: I suspected that your 70's list would be pretty short, and that the issue of "keeping up" for you has little to actually do with continuing influence, mostly to do with the simple fact that your most of your personal favs just happen to have come to life post 1979.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

"For a band that isn't actively experimenting with its sound, influence gradually declines over time." -William

Ceratinly. But what any given artist acheived and how influential they once were is not lost like a fart in the wind to the effect of negating their HISTORICAL significance. It's there... it did happen... that's part of the mission of a museum, Hall - to analyze the evidence in time and report it.
You like to ignore that and focus on 2007 too much, brother. The present and future is an admirable focus, but paramount to this Hall IS the history lesson.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 13:49pm


Q) Isn't part of the problem with "not keeping up with the times" the fact that there's only 5 inductees per year- yet the same people like "The Stooges" (nominated 4 straight years 04-07) and others keep on being nominated?

Shouldn't there be a rule that if a nominated artist isn't voted in then they can't be renominated for a minimum of 5 years??


A) Right, because we don't want The Stooges getting their due anytime soon, right?

Pretty much the only way for the few sensible people on the nominating committee to force through deserving artists that Wenner doesn't absolutely adore is to continually re-nominate them until they either run out of "better" choices to induct or the public outcry over continued snubbing forces them to capitulate (which happens sometime between rarely and never). Why take away that one pitiful check against the voters' almost absolute power? -William


William, you accused Shawn of putting words in your mouth-now aren't you doing the same by implying the question suggested that "The Stooges" didn't deserve to be inducted??

If the powers that be aren't going to change the format and allow more nominees then isn't this just one of life's tough choices, i.e. is it worth gumming up the works by renominating 1 deserving band like "The Stooges" (who definitely played a part in laying the groundwork for punk even though other bands before them also played a role)......

OR

Is it more important to address the bigger problem of "allowing their backlog to swell" by instituting a simple rule to prevent the same artist (deserving or not) from constantly taking up valuable space on the ballots???

Posted by interviewer on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 20:25pm


"Isn't part of the problem.. fact that there's only 5 inductees per year" -interviewer

I say and have repeatedly and emphatically said YES to this question, view. 5 per year is this aggravatingly inadequate number that I think Wenner & Co. have wangled to intentionally create scarcity - their fucking employing the long-line-in-front-of-the-nightclub schtick to cultivate an arrogated air of exclusivity.

They're turning their back on an inclusive, timeline of rock history model in favor of the "we're so hip not because of who is in here, but who is NOT; don't-cha wish you were?"

The backlog has swollen up like a goddamn refugee camp now in 2007. If the Hall is concerned at all with staying relevant, it better pull its head out and start structuring its inductee lists with some purpose.
1) Yes, increase the inductees to 8 per year.
2) Give 2 of the nominations and votes per year to music journalists like the Pitchfork staff and Christgau. This would immediately infuse new interest and enthusiasm and make a huge stride towards gaining some credibility.
3) Manipulate the vote. Categorize it. Give the voters 6 nominees for 2 spots for a post-punk pioneer, for instance: (.."this year, you may choose from Sonic Youth, The Replacements, Husker Du, The Cure, Joy Division or Gang of Four"),
4 nominees for 1 prog rock spot: ("choose one of Genesis, King Crimson, Moody Blues or Rush.)

or they could change their format year to year, tailor it to their taste and choose by decade the next year perhaps:

6 noms for 2 spots from '70-'79: (.."your choices are The Cars, Cheap Trick, Brian Eno, Roxy Music, Doobie Brothers or War"),

6 choices for 2 spots for artists first recording 1969 or earlier: (.."select 2 from Jeff Beck, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, Joe Cocker, Chicago or Steve Miller Band.")

"If the powers that be aren't going to change the format and allow more nominees then isn't this just one of life's tough choices, i.e. is it worth gumming up the works by renominating 1 deserving band like "The Stooges" -interviewer

I don't mind that. If a band like The Stooges should be getting in, camp them there until the voters see the light.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 21:42pm


Who cares? The ceremony airs on VH1 "classic", not even the original. It is like number 30 on most people's list of things to do, if on their list at all, just after take a dump and brush teeth.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 21:55pm


As an observer of the Rock Hall for a number of years, I feel that I should, to balance the contenders newly eligible in 2008/2009 with some artists already eligible but who I feel might have a chance of getting in even though most have never been on the ballot.

1) Def Leppard: Eligible since 2004/2005, their earliest recordings have been disowned and 2008/2009 corresponds with 25 years after their rise to superstardom. It is hard to see Bon Jovi getting in before Def Leppard do.

2) Eurythmics: eligible since 2006/2007, their first recordings are virtually unknown and they became stars at the same time as Def Leppard.

3) Tina Turner (solo): Despite having been previously eligible, most people see her solo career as beginning properly with "Private Dancer" and that was such a smash it should give her a chance.

4) Depeche Mode: Previously considered by the nominating committee, like the three artists previously they first established their new sound around 1984 with Martin Gore's songwriting. Less popular, though, so less likely to be on the 2008/2009 ballot.

5) Kraftwerk: On the 2002/2003 ballot, it will be interesting to see if their influence on 1980s pop gets them considered again.

6) Peter Gabriel (solo): eligible since 2002/2003 but now well-known in the US until well into the eighties. His best chance may be around 2011/2012, but as he became more popular in the US with time it may be harder for the committee to overlook him even if Wenner does not like him.

7) Iron Maiden: Already received votes from the nominating committee, and their role in influencing 1980s metal (which became THE popular music in the US) makes me think they have a reacl chance.

8) The Cars: Like the first three acts here, peaked around 25 years before the 2008/2009 induction.

9) The Replacements: the most critically lauded of the 1980s alternative acts: Richie Unterberger said they were likely to be inducted in 2002 - see what the 2008/2009 ballot tells us!

Leonard Cohen's induction has made me consider other singer/songwriters, notably Kate Bush and Tim Buckley (neither of whom have ever got a vote from the nominating committee) plus Nick Drake and Laura Nyro.

It is important to recognise, though that the expressive femininity and complex narratives of Nyro and Bush will likely keep them out of contention unless sweeping changes are made to the judges.

Posted by Julien Peter Benney on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 23:43pm


I go away for one gig, yes ONE Kaiser Chiefs gig, and THIS happens....

Posted by liam on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 06:09am


I didn´t expect it. But Leonard Cohen deserves his nomination, for me he is one of the greatest artists, a fantastic poet of the inner voice.Many thanks from Austria..Wolfgang

Posted by wolfgang on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 10:43am


Herman's Hermits? The lightest of lightweight bands. C'mon, we can do MUCH better.

Chicago? One great record (their first). Otherwise, nearly as lightweight as HH's.

I think disco, rap and hip hop do not belong in the RnR HOF. They're not rock or anything close to it. That being said, I'd put in a pitch for Donna Summer. Yes, she was super-disco for most of her career. But around 1980, she showed, like Blondie, that disco and RnR could co-exist in the same song. Check out "Hot Stuff" with its guitar solo and rock drum fills. That was revolutionary.

Posted by The King on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 15:38pm


I think disco/dance music belongs in the HOF because it's derived from blues and jazz. How do you think Sly and the Family Stone or Funkadelic got in ???? Rap on the other hand doesn't deserve because it doesn't involve singing and proper musical notes. Plus it's not Rock and Roll, or anything that's close to it. Take Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, Afrika Bambattaa, and Sugarhill Gang and put them in a Rap Hall of Fame where they belong, or a plain Music Hall of Fame, anything that can rightfully honor rap music.
Put in more 1960's and 1970's bands and then the Hall of Fame would at least serves it's own purpose.

Posted by Patrick on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 16:47pm


William, are we done with our conversation? Are you pissed off?

Posted by shawn on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 00:30am


I didn't see it until now.

"Really? You think seniority isn't relevant when you're comparing two artists of (theoretically) equal merit in their respective categories, one born before the other, perhaps by 10+ years; chronology doesn't bear some deference?"-shawn

No. Impact trumps all. If two thinks are of precisely equal impact (which won't happen), then flip a coin. Besides, giving deference to older musicians when the two are equally deserving is completely different than giving it to them when they are not, which is the typical situation.

"Further than that, you don't feel any nagging dissatisfaction from worthy 70's era artists ignored while the Hall move onward ever onward to 1980+?"-shawn

As I said, it's not my fault they're getting behind on their own quota. But even if The Dave Clark Five do deserve in, no matter how long they've been waiting, they still deserve it less than Sonic Youth.

"I suspected that your 70's list would be pretty short, and that the issue of "keeping up" for you has little to actually do with continuing influence, mostly to do with the simple fact that your most of your personal favs just happen to have come to life post 1979."-shawn

Except you would be wrong. Regardless of how many of my "favorites" are from whatever era, I don't bring favoritism into this. I don't even talk about most of them.

"But what any given artist acheived and how influential they once were is not lost like a fart in the wind to the effect of negating their HISTORICAL significance. It's there... it did happen... that's part of the mission of a museum, Hall - to analyze the evidence in time and report it."-shawn

Never said it did, just that longer careers doesn't necessarily mean greater impact since the later albums aren't going to be as inspiring as the first few, no matter how objectively good they still are.

"You like to ignore that and focus on 2007 too much, brother."-shawn

Where have I done this? I'm not even discussing this year.

"The present and future is an admirable focus, but paramount to this Hall IS the history lesson."-shawn

It's the impact of history on the present and the future. That's the whole reason anyone studies history. If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?

Posted by William on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 00:52am


I think, shawn, that you have made some wrongful connection between "age of artist" and "level of impact". You can't create a rule, as then you'd have a situation where it gets used out of context. Also, by giving a priority to artists from before 1979, you are essentially belittling post 1980.

Posted by liam on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 11:48am


No, he is saying that if you have two artists that deserve induction (and no they do not necessarily have to be equal in terms of their deserving of induction, but lets just say they both deserve induction), why not let seniority be the trump card? And, as for belittling 1980 and beyond I did not take that from his posts.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 17:45pm


"if you have two artists that deserve induction (and no they do not necessarily have to be equal in terms of their deserving of induction, but lets just say they both deserve induction), why not let seniority be the trump card?"

Because it is giving the older an unfair advantage over the younger, and that's despite the fact that it isn't possible to have two artists who's impact is perfectly identical.

"And, as for belittling 1980 and beyond I did not take that from his posts."

That really echoes the sort of post a certain someone used to make. Anyway, do you not see what I'm getting at? Shawn drew a distinction between "1979 and earlier" and "1980 and later". By giving the 1979 artists a trumo card, just because they are older, you could be seen as vlauing it as more than the younger artist.

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 12.18.07 @ 10:47am


"No, he is saying that if you have two artists that deserve induction (and no they do not necessarily have to be equal in terms of their deserving of induction, but lets just say they both deserve induction),"

This is a classic Anonymous. Notice that he both fails to understand another person's point, and his own interpretation on things is wrong.

What'll you use next? Peartlover101? Leahcim? Don't bother.

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 12.18.07 @ 13:40pm


"I think, shawn, that you have made some wrongful connection between "age of artist" and "level of impact"...by giving a priority to artists from before 1979, you are essentially belittling post 1980." -Liam

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well enough; William's point that a fully deserving artist who is now eligible should be judged on thier impact just as evenly as one who has been eligible/waiting for 10+ years, and should not be hamstrung and automatically "get in line" is well taken - that is something I do concur with. I was not pushing that age trumps all or that age is a priority pass. I was simply saying that because of the backlog from the 70's, and the ever growing public outrage over this, that perhaps the idea of structured nomination categories would remove the randomness and calm the controversy.

I realize this goes against William's gospel of "impact and innovation by my/people like me's measure", but I am of the mind that that is stodgy, grumpy, erudite and rigid.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 08:49am


"Regardless of how many of my "favorites" are from whatever era, I don't bring favoritism into this."

Horseshit. Plug in most of your "objective" criteria that you want and it's still Your favorite criteria, ergo your favorite choices. I am not saying that the choices you like (and that's the correct phrase - "like", like that or not) are wrong ones - I think I'd concur with your personal judgment 80% or more - but the WAY artists are judged is conflicted and contentious, so please don't be self assured enough to sit there aend claim you are Neutral Ned. You're not a computer program; even that would be subjective though, by the way it was programmed.

"Wouldn't..closer proximity to modern music..give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?
It's the impact of history on the present and the future. That's the whole reason anyone studies history. If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?" -William

First, define "Anything". Jeezus William.
Secondly, impact on the present - fine, there for all to see and judge.
But future impact? You have that much confidence in your Ouija board, do you? Or are you just that smart?
You really feel like you can look over the current musical landscape and declare that Sonic Youth or White Stripes or Arcade Fire or Arctic Monkeys are going to catch the ears and musical hearts the individual fledgling musician in his/her bedroom and basement than that old cd of Beatles or Rush or Pink Floyd or Steve Miller or Cat Stevens or Ray Charles?
That's speculative to the point of arrogance.

"..just that longer careers doesn't necessarily mean greater impact since the later albums aren't going to be as inspiring as the first few, no matter how objectively good they still are. -William

..How many people do you think were influenced by The Rolling Stones' "A Bigger Bang"? For a band that isn't actively experimenting with its sound, influence gradually declines over time. -William

.. if we're not keeping up with the times, then why have the museum in the first place? Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself?" -William

Elton John, Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Eagles...more...
All Hall inductees whose musical contributions it could be argued seriously diminished in quality and force and consequtnly whose Impact on current music it could be argued waned. Yes?
So, if these artists were, hypothetically, still not in the Hall here in 2007, are you saying that someone like Sonic Youth would deserve induction before any of them by your standards?





"..but if there's a thirty-some-odd-year gap between them and us, how exactly are you showing that progression?

You're inserting a standard that is too lofty, scholarly and in many ways, completely unneccesary. Relax.
The 25 year waiting period pretty much precludes your complete timeline connection wish - there's a built in gap, isn't there? That alone supports the history for history's sake paradigm, even when there's not a vibrant irrefutable pipeline to some nascent youth movement here in 2007, which seems to be your sermon.
Who are you to define a musical cul-de-sac anyway, professor? When does influence show up on a radar?

"Kim Gordon is 54. She'll be eligible for Social Security before long. Just saying I'd hate to only be getting around to inducting the "young" guys by the time they're senior citizens." -William

Yea, I know. Lots of people would like to see 70's rock icons perform before thay are all dead.
Sonic Youth shoulad have been able to perform 5-10 years ago.


Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 09:42am


The prbolem, shawn, is that it's almost impossible for artists of perfectly equal merit to exist.

But, as an example, I'll give you all a scenario of a place being battled for the Smiths and the Stooges. Next induction ceremony, even. Do you induct the Stooges, who've been nominated to no avail for, what is it, 6 times, or do you put in the Smiths, who only became eligible that year. It poses somewhat of a conundrum to William's 'impact uber alles' method, as I'd say the two aforementioned artists have similiar levels of impact, and yet the Stooges have been waiting around for far too long.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 11:19am


"Horseshit. Plug in most of your "objective" criteria that you want and it's still Your favorite criteria, ergo your favorite choices."

Shawn, you've got to accept that there's a limit on how subjective you can't be. If you REALLY wanted to nitpick, why not just go ahead and say that NOTHING can be completely objective? Because it would be a waste of fucking time typing it, that's why. Just accept that no one can be fully objective without either being a robot or an absolute bore. Or both.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 11:47am


"Elton John, Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Eagles...more...are you saying that someone like Sonic Youth would deserve induction before any of them by your standards?"

Definitely before Elton and Rod, although maybe you're confusing William's argument - he never said anything about forgetting the 25 year rule.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 11:57am


"The problem, shawn, is that it's almost impossible for artists of perfectly equal merit to exist." -liam

Indeed, yes. That is certainly just a laboratory scenario that may never actually exist, but come close, as in your Stooges vs Smiths duel, which is sure to be challenged by many, too.

Again, my concern for the ER waiting room of pre-1980 artists (a somewhat arbitary date) is one of general acknowledgment of a conspicuous crowd from a general era - the 70's. This somewhat tangental debate sprang from my proposition that the Hall simply try a structure and stratagem for not pissing more and more people off and not missing many musical notables who should have their walk of fame star already.... in my humble opinion, of course.

But again, not at the expense of a legitimately deserving artist whose 25 years have come to fruition. Sorry if I didn't nake that clear before.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:11pm


"Shawn, you've got to accept that there's a limit on how subjective you can't be. If you REALLY wanted to nitpick, why not just go ahead and say that NOTHING can be completely objective?" - liam

No, I do get that, I really do, and William has echoed this same fact before.
My problem is just with William & Co.'s narrow dogma of INFLUENCE & INNOVATION and the fact that he has ordained it Objective. Preach it, endorse it, swear by it, whatever -- but don't be so pretentious as to label it certified organic Objective, alright, because it's just not - it's but one fat measuring stick - there are many.

Dezmond just made a case for KISS using another stick - cultural presence, commercial presence, icky but undeniable significance through ubiquity.
Nebulous, inexact, but tangible.

There are nunerous angles and doors and windows through which an artist to gain justifiable enrty, often inexact combinations of them. But they don't need a fucking pedigree.

Dezmond also brings up a stubborn reality of the God INFLUENCE, which I have mentioned before - it demonstrates its power without regard to quality, doesn't it? Will William still kneel at the altar of influence when the artists on deck are KISS and Def Leppard and such, or will he try to circumvent that nasty duble edge by just leapfrogging a bit farther back in rock time and sayng "band A did that first, so sucky band B's influence is moot."?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:35pm


"Definitely before Elton and Rod, although maybe you're confusing William's argument - he never said anything about forgetting the 25 year rule" -liam

You're missing my point with that, mate.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:37pm


"Horseshit. Plug in most of your "objective" criteria that you want and it's still Your favorite criteria, ergo your favorite choices."-shawn

I find this offensive and more than a little unsound. They are not my "favorite" criteria, but rather the only criteria that make any sense to me. If you were to ask me to choose between two different criteria for the Baseball Hall of Fame, say for example "batting average" and "number of hats worn," would I be playing favorites by picking the statistic that has the most to do with how the actual game is played?

And what's more, I can prove how my criteria influence the "game" of music. For one, there's INFLUENCE. The word itself is all the argument it needs. Secondly, innovation impacts music. From the invention of the electric guitar to the incorporation of outlandish instruments like the theremin and singing saw, they permanently change how the game is played from then on. It has real consequences for all music forever. Forever. Sales are temporal. The non-musicians who buy records have no direct influence on the game. All they're good for is measuring trends that have already been established. So if you're going to accuse me of picking criteria out of convenience, kindly remove the plank from your eye and explain how the criteria I'm choosing to ignore are valid in the first place. The burden of proof is no longer on me.

"Secondly, impact on the present - fine, there for all to see and judge.
But future impact? You have that much confidence in your Ouija board, do you? Or are you just that smart? "-shawn

To a limited degree, predictions about the future based on past and present evidence can be made. I think you're just trying to be a jerk.

"You really feel like you can look over the current musical landscape and declare that Sonic Youth or White Stripes or Arcade Fire or Arctic Monkeys are going to catch the ears and musical hearts the individual fledgling musician in his/her bedroom and basement than that old cd of Beatles or Rush or Pink Floyd or Steve Miller or Cat Stevens or Ray Charles?
That's speculative to the point of arrogance."-shawn

Well if you paid the slightest bit of attention to any of my posts regarding future eligibles (of which I have opposed The White Stripes and not even discussed Arcade Fire or Arctic Monkeys), I always qualify my predictions: "If such and such happens and they do this or that, I think they stand a fair shot." That's hardly the same as saying "lock. I r teh smarterest." Sonic Youth has already made its mark and is doing so presently. Assuming it will continue to do so is hardly arrogant, but point is, I don't have to prove that. They already deserve in.

"Elton John, Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Eagles...more...
All Hall inductees whose musical contributions it could be argued seriously diminished in quality and force and consequtnly whose Impact on current music it could be argued waned. Yes?
So, if these artists were, hypothetically, still not in the Hall here in 2007, are you saying that someone like Sonic Youth would deserve induction before any of them by your standards?"-shawn

Before Rod Stewart and The Eagles, I would, but not Elton John, The Stones, or Clapton. You seem to be conveniently forgetting the crux of my argument that was "influence and innovation trump all." Much as I love Sonic Youth, and believe them to be at least as innovative if not moreso than ALL of those, they were not more influential than The Rolling Stones.

Now once again, IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT THE HALL HAS THIS HUGE BACKLOG. I want to stress that. If they could actually keep up with the number of deserving eligibles, this would not be a problem. And people are free to debate which artists are more deserving providing they can defend their choices as well as the criteria they use. If they can't, however, I am free to say that they are spouting out of their asses.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:51pm


Maybe I missed something - I THINK that what you're getting at is that IF two 'equal' artists came across each other - one being older and having waited ages, the other being a new eligible - the older artist should receive priority SIMPLY because they've had to wait.

""band A did that first, so sucky band B's influence is moot."?"

Depends on who "band C" is in this situation, that is to say who band B is supposed to have influenced. If band B has had a definite influence on enough band C's, and those band C's are of at least decent quality, then band B definitely deserves to receive note.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:57pm


"..and those band C's are of at least decent quality.." -liam

No, no, no, no.. who said we could bring quality into it? Influence is influence - it don't know no stinkin' quality - live by it, die by it.

Quality IS the ultimate trump card and the most subjective of all the Commandments and the silent partner in almost (almost) every so-called objective opinion.

You're tapping right into my overall thematic point here, liam.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:06pm


Shawn, you onbviously know what I mean, otherwise you wouldn't have made that "just like how the smell of my fart influenced you to vomit" comment.

We really do have to look at exactly WHO gets influenced, not just the blank statistic of HOW MANY artists get influenced. Otherwise, you know, some bad stuff would happen...

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:10pm


" THINK that what you're getting at is that IF two 'equal' artists came across each other - one being older and having waited ages, the other being a new eligible - the older artist should receive priority SIMPLY because they've had to wait." -laim

Yes, I would say that (William says flip a coin). But I agree with you that situation is likely an entirely theoretical one and one artist can always be argued as more impatful than another, no matter how detailed that gets.

Honestly, my grievance is just that many of the 70's artists I bemoan the abandonemant of are being trivialized and lost in time and William's perspective of "if they aren't in the air right now, where is there lasting significance" is dismisive and discards many 70's gems who should get a nod because they just don't satisfy some hip factor anymore.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:14pm


Look, just remeber that William never argued aginst them being inducted.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:17pm


"Shawn, you onbviously know what I mean, otherwise you wouldn't have made that "just like how the smell of my fart influenced you to vomit" comment." -liam

(Laughing).. yea, I remember that comment. I don't remember what page I made that on, so I can't examine whether you parsed that a little out of context or if I was anti-influence period and my stance has adjusted since then, but my feelings currently are that Influence is surely A - as in one of many - possible moving factors that must be evaluated on its own merits, as demonstrated in Dezmond's KISS Keltner workup. I hear what you are warning against too, Liam, and I would reply that Quality is the fickled beast that does rule the day, but it has to let influence - bad though it may be - have its say.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:22pm


""Look, just remeber that William never argued aginst them being inducted." -liam

I was using the KISS example for our talk on influence good and bad, not the talk on age of inductees/William.
We're juggling a couple of arguments simultaneously here and I'll be sure to try not to spill one into the other if you don't too.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:27pm


"They are not my "favorite" criteria, but rather the only criteria that make any sense to me." -William

Oh for the love of Thurston Moore, William......
Accuse me of mild hyperbole if you must, but don't be so tedious with my semantics. Come on.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:31pm


"and William's perspective of "if they aren't in the air right now, where is there lasting significance" is dismisive and discards many 70's gems who should get a nod because they just don't satisfy some hip factor anymore."-shawn

My what? Huh? When did I say this? Who's playing Nick Drake today? Captain Beefheart? The Sonics? Blue Cheer? None of those are exactly getting much love from the younger generation (although perhaps some Iron & Wine fans might stumble upon Nick Drake by accident). You're really stretching to paint me with this hipster brush, but saying it doesn't make it so. I never said that if they're not influencing people here and now that their past influence is moot, which is what you're implying. I'm never going to say that either.

"Oh for the love of Thurston Moore, William......
Accuse me of mild hyperbole if you must, but don't be so tedious with my semantics. Come on."-shawn

Didn't look like semantics to me. It looked very clearly as though you were accusing me of picking criteria out of convenience, and it was offensive not only for accusing me of favoritism, but completely dismissing all the logical arguments I've made in favor of sensible criteria.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:42pm


"If you were to ask me to choose between two different criteria for the Baseball Hall of Fame, say for example "batting average" and "number of hats worn," would I be playing favorites by picking the statistic that has the most to do with how the actual game is played?" -William

This presumes that the two "statistics" you are choosing between with regards to the Rock Hall are similarly relevant and frivilous, of course.

Only two stats seem to make any sense to you: influence and innovation, snaggged from that form letter the Hall has put out in the past.

But as I read the Hall's manifesto, "Significance"
is the standard for their purpose: "to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll.."

Significance? Means a lot of things. More than two.

When you refer to the silly criteria "number of hats worn", what are you referring to?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:44pm


"and William's perspective of "if they aren't in the air right now, where is there lasting significance"..." -me

"My what? Huh? When did I say this? Who's playing Nick Drake today?"

Again with being Miss Fussbucket over the semantics? "In The Air" - as in "in the collective consciousness of the newer gereation of artists" --- not literally on the radio airwaves.
You serious?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:49pm


"Significance? Means a lot of things. More than two."-shawn

So what else does it mean in terms of "the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll"? That's the key part. Offer up some alternative criteria if you're going to whine about the ones I use when I've explained my position repeatedly.

"Again with being Miss Fussbucket over the semantics? "In The Air" - as in "in the collective consciousness of the newer gereation of artists" --- not literally on the radio airwaves.
You serious?"-shawn

Well forgive me for not understanding an argument meted out entirely in subtext. Maybe I'm too simpleminded, or else maybe you're getting carried away with your thesaurus. My point remains: Never said that. Naturally I would argue that the greatest influence would logically be the longest-lived, such as Buddy Guy's incalculable influence on blues-rock and thus pretty much all rock to follow afterward up to the present day, but that's not a requirement. Captain Beefheart isn't influencing a lot today either, or at least not directly, but I would argue that he was the most innovative of any musician in the past century. What you call "semantics" I call "misinterpretation." But I'm at least going to lengths to attempt to be understood.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:59pm


"Well if you paid the slightest bit of attention to any of my posts regarding future eligibles.. I always qualify my predictions: "If such and such happens and they do this or that, I think they stand a fair shot." That's hardly the same as saying "lock. I r teh smarterest." _Willaim

Give me an I, gimee an R, gimmee an R, gimmee an E.... Irreleavnt!!!!!!!
Standing a fair shot is dandy... and also has nothing to do with this debate, as it's quite seperate from stating this:

"Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?"

Maybe, but a) not neccesarily at all and..
b) again, why presume that to be true. Recorded music from any year can find its way into the hands and ipods of many, many a nascent musician. You're making a personal leap of logic.

"Sonic Youth has already made its mark and is doing so presently. Assuming it will continue to do so is hardly arrogant, but point is, I don't have to prove that. They already deserve in." -William

Indeed, no need to prove a thing about Sonic Youth; their mark is indelible.
I speak of the problem I have with your broader sense of ageism.
"Firstly, if we're not keeping up with the times, then why have the museum in the first place? Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself?" -William

Again, I feel your sense of history is too narrow, too rigid, too avant garde oriented.

And are you sure you don't want to rethink telling me that you'd seriously forego The Eagles or Rod Stewart today in favor of Sonic Youth? You really don't see how outer edge that colors you?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:17pm


Let me put it in terms that you might understand: Eat a dick.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:19pm


"Didn't look like semantics to me. It looked very clearly as though you were accusing me of picking criteria out of convenience..accusing me of favoritism.."

I'm challenging your sole criteria themselves, not your mission.

It's not really that I think you have some agenda and your criteria of choice conveniently "serve" you and your doctrine... I would challenge your narrow choice of criteria; I called you myopic before, remember? You said in order to be myopic, there has to be something you are ignoring, and we went through this.



" and it was offensive..for..completely dismissing all the logical arguments I've made in favor of sensible criteria. -William

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:27pm


"Let me put it in terms that you might understand: Eat a dick." -W

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!! I love you William!

"But I'm at least going to lengths to attempt to be understood."

Indeed.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:36pm


"Let me put it in terms that you might understand: Eat a dick." -W

Since this argument is apparently gone as far as it can without stretching the lines of decorum is an entirely new approach needed??

Since the rules currently in place for induction like 25 years wait, only 5 inductees per year aren't going to change any time soon by the looks of it- then why not break ground on an entirely new building maybe even in a different city and call it "The Post-Modern Rock Hall Of Fame?"

Why not make the cutoff point 1983-the year that CD's were introduced? This way all the stuff like The Smiths, Naked Raygun, My Bloody Valentine, etc. don't hve to compete with The Stooges, Connie Francis, Donovan, etc...

If something like this isn't done soon then this situation will continue to spiral out of control and the animosity/frustration will continue to grow, won't it?

Posted by interviewer on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 15:35pm


Alright, that is it - you two go to your rooms!

Posted by Matzo Ball on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 17:52pm


"Significance? Means a lot of things. More than two."-shawn

"So what else does it mean in terms of "the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll"? That's the key part. Offer up some alternative criteria if you're going to whine about the ones I use.. (innovation & influence)" - W.

In ADDITION to I & I, some possible criteria, though no one rules the day and any given artist may be significant in one or many:

--- QUALITY of:
- song structure
- lyrical content
- musicianship
- overall body of work
- consistency of quality work

----Any:
- landmark albums?
- landmark singles?
- landmark performances?

- "real" longevity
- sales success over a significant period
- chart success " " " "
- concert sales success "" " "

- a maintained ubiquity over a significant period of time
- considered a key member of a notable genre
- considered a pioneer member of a notable genre

History, history, history. Did it happen in time?
If you can map their influence and demonstrate a legacy that reaches all the way to today and can make a nice case that it will perpetuate into tomorrow for some time too, that's a very nice bonus badge and signifies that history will show them to be that much more significant; but it's not prerequisite.
Your Hall would max out its fraternity pledge list really quickly with your code, William.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 23:24pm


Well interviewer, something like your suggestion could be an alternative - like a music journalist and musician's run Hall of Fame, but this current Hall could immediately solve the credibility debt and broaden its appeal by simply adding to and tweaking its nomination process by humbling itself and outsourcing a couple of the inductions to Pitchfork & Co.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.20.07 @ 22:12pm


Wow - it must have gotten much worse if the site's admin squad is even deleting my question about yesterday. Anyone able to give me the news before this is zapped again? What happened with Liam and "Hey Joe"?

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 07:10am


Yeah, in reading these posts I see that Liam used to "fight" with anon, and many others, then "Hey Joe." Common denominator? Pattern?

Posted by Matzo Ball on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 07:40am


I don't know, shawn. The admins have some explaining to do. (liam)

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:05am


Unless there is some sort of problem occuring with the admin team, I'll ask one question: Why delete mine, and, by the looks of it, shawn's posts, when you leave the blatant adverts and spams?

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:07am


Geezus Krist Michael, just shut the f**k up already, will you? I can't believe your stupidity and audacity. Nobody is fooled - everybody sees you, your stupid voice is that recognizable; do you have any semblance of personal dignity whatsoever, dude? I'll leave you alone as "Matzo", but not if you continue to push it. Just keep your stupid yap shut with regard to liam or anything related. Damn.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:09am


FFS, I have ONE spat with a Kiss fan boy/Anonymous, and my name gets blocked. One problem thought, as I can obviously just go on under a different name. Why not just accept that I was a bit overboard on the insults last night, and let me use "liam" again? Please.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:15am


"Please keep comments relevant to the topic."

That'd explain why: fanboy comments, adverts, spams and, less so, personal attacks are left on.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:17am


The Great OZ has spoken! I feel like I just heard from the Burning Bush.

I will say this liam, it was probably a good policy for you to just ignore "hey Joe"'s garbage yesterday because you are being toyed with.
If it was Michael, he was just tormenting and baiting you the way I did him as "tostada ted, "taco bill", etc.
If it was, by small chance, actually a different individual, then he claerly sees that anon/michael enrages you and he was utilizing that for his own amusement.

Eiter way, you were being played with. Don't give him the satisfaction. His twisted joy can only come now from petty, occasional jabs from the dark of the corners he's been relegated to.
He knows what an ass he's made of himself and he's gnawing at his limbs because of it.
Let Gollum writhe in bitterness alone and shut him out.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:23am


"Let Gollum writhe in bitterness alone and shut him out."

Oh I'm sure he has plenty of other outletts and hobbies. That's why he's so obssesive.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:27am


He craves attention. Truly ignoring him will render him inert and harmless, if we can stomach it.
In the defense of FRH admin, they do actually let a LOT of stuff go that I am often surprised at; they could clamp down on you and I and others a lot harsher than they do, if they enforced their stated rules very stringintly. What I witnessed of that smack-back-and-forth between you and "Joe" yesterday did venture into the realm of the absurd, my friend - it had to be stopped.
I laughed my ass off thought at your snooker ball in a sock comment! Classic. Still laughing (almost as hard as William telling me to eat a dick!)

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:33am


Yeah, trust me to not know when to stop. I'm sure that if we weren't as funny as we are, the admins would have booted us.

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:38am


So William, getting back to relevance in the context of preoccupation for "keeping up to date" vs respect for history, one of the things you said keeps standing out for me and I'd like to hear your explanation:
"It's the impact of history on the present and the future. That's the whole reason anyone studies history. If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?

and: "Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself?"

1) What is your defintion of "ANYTHING"? This is probably the core of my isuue with your paradigm.

2)Why learn history? You seem to have little use and little regard for the music you see as beneath you. If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the epiphany for a genre today, are you saying that their spoilage date has expired and their historical significance and time in the sun is irrelevant.

It seems this way, though I'm sure you'll get pissy with me and accuse me of subtext again.

You've really got the whole surly thing down pat.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:51am


I only have one word for you all:)

SCORPIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by KaThLeEn:) on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 12:02pm


Ok guys, new list.
Your top ten music videos EVER:

"The Masterplan" - Oasis

"Just" - Radiohead

"Shiny Happy People" - R.E.M. (no, it isn't their greatest song, but the video is funny, in a quirky kind of way)

"Alright" - Supergrass

"Windowlicker" and "Come To Daddy" - Aphex Twin

"Firestarter" - Prodigy

"How Soon Is Now?" - The Smiths

"Teardrop" - Massive Attack

"Fools Gold" - Stone Roses (actually, it might be "I Wanna Be Adored" - the video is of them on this purple-ish background)



That's not in any order, apart from how I could remember them.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 13:21pm


"1) What is your defintion of "ANYTHING"? This is probably the core of my isuue with your paradigm."-shawn

I really don't understand the question. My definition of "anything"? Well "amounting to something" means being of value or significance, so I guess I meant "Why learn something unless it is significant?" And it wouldn't BE significant if it didn't impact the present in some way. "If a tree falls in the forest" and all that jazz.

"Why learn history? You seem to have little use and little regard for the music you see as beneath you. If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the epiphany for a genre today, are you saying that their spoilage date has expired and their historical significance and time in the sun is irrelevant."-shawn

1) No, I'm not saying that. As I have said many times (enough to get sick of repeating myself), I enjoy plenty of musicians that I do not regard as innovative, influential, or both. But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different.

2) Stop with the unneccesarily flowery language. I'm seeing way too many awkward and out of place words, such as "epiphany" as used above.

"It seems this way, though I'm sure you'll get pissy with me and accuse me of subtext again."-shawn

Well when you say something like "in the air" and expect me to intuit that you meant "in the collective consciousness of the newer generation of artists," hell yes I get "pissy." How did you honestly expect me, or anyone in the entire world for that matter, to know that's what you meant?

Posted by W on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 01:05am


"..If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?" -William

"What is your defintion of "ANYTHING"?" -shawn

"Well "amounting to something" means being of value or significance.." -W

"..so I guess I meant "Why learn something unless it is significant?"" -W

"..deserving a spot in history because it truly matters.." -W

--- 'Of vaule', 'of significance', 'truly matters'.... those are all of the same vague subjectivity as 'amount to anything', aren't they? Thanks for that.
But you do keep returning to this one, lone standard:

"...it wouldn't BE significant if it didn't impact the present in some way. "If a tree falls in the forest" and all that jazz."

We disagree both on what impacting the present means, and we have a different reverance for history for history's own sake.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 11:01am


This began with my objection to A-Killa's guffaw at the "relevance" of 3 inductees from the 60's.

"Why would the relevance of a year's inductions hinge on the age of those inductees, i.e., the proximity of their first recording to our current year?" -me

You keep asserting that we need to "keep up with the times" and not let "history outpace itself",

I say: "Why should "keeping up to date" come into the consideration equation at all? Merit is merit."

You dismiss too much; you have a hipster soul no matter that you deny it. That's why you would be on the extremist end of a nominating committee table. Saying things like:
"But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different." -W
is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is.
It's the Truly Matters part.
Because tell me - In Specifics - the artists that "matter".

You won't do it. Because it insults you, irritates you - the question itself is an affront to the priviledges of your perch.

I have much, much respect for your vast knowledge, William, but you're a phucking grouchy Obi-Wan. Your the "Stupid Sniper" - you sit there in your tree and snipe off stupids as they jog by.
But you resent it when someone shouts a question up at you about your aim.

You know what, "sounding good on my cd player" actually IS more significant (often, not always) than you would acknowledge.

Again, we always come back to the "truly MATTERS" part.

"2) Stop with the unneccesarily flowery language. I'm seeing way too many awkward and out of place words, such as "epiphany" as used above." -W

Bugger off, grumpy guru. Epiphany is a common word that fit just fine there in describing an artist that appeared on the scene and in historical perspective manifested itself as something of a deity or essential paragon for a genre.

Nitpicking word usage and subtext is an antic I would have thought you better than, Mr. Bill. Very "Anon-ish".

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 11:24am


"You dismiss too much; you have a hipster soul no matter that you deny it."

What? Is that because he doesn't talk about his own musical tastes as regularly as we do? Is that it? I'm not actually sure what a "hipster soul" is - feel free to give an explanantion.

""But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different." -W
is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is.
It's the Truly Matters part.
Because tell me - In Specifics - the artists that "matter"."

Shawn, I think that your really putting words into William's mouth. In this context, that of "who deserves induction into a Music HoF?", simply "sounding good" to someone, even a musician themself, is simply not enough to qualify as a criteria for induction. Hey, it'd be a nice additional to help shove individual artists upto the Hall, but should it be counted against an artist, say, Brian Eno or Kraftwerk, simply because they aren't as accessible as, say, Oasis or the White Stripes?

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 11:38am


".. but should it be counted against an artist, say, Brian Eno or Kraftwerk, simply because they aren't as accessible as, say, Oasis or the White Stripes?" -Liam

No, no, not at all. I wasn't connecting "sounding good" to accessibility or catchiness. Besides that, I was NOT contrasting different artists nor using "sounds good in my cd player" as the gold standard.
I was trying to point out that there IS a value and a significance to artists in history (like those that may be on my or your cd player, just for instance) even if we cannot trace their lineage directly to a current "up to date" and flourishing genre, or provide a list of references that please an individual.

"..simply "sounding good" to someone, even a musician themself, is simply not enough to qualify as a criteria for induction." -liam

I agree. Of course. My argument with William currently rests in my belief that the stautes in his book of criteria are too restrictive.

"What? Is that because he doesn't talk about his own musical tastes as regularly as we do? Is that it?" -liam

No, that's not it.

"I'm not actually sure what a "hipster soul" is - feel free to give an explanantion." -liam

William is a hipster by virtue of his tastes, that's all. I can give you examples that I know of, if that is necessary.
I'm not impugning his tastes by any means; he's surely got great taste and vastly more knowledge than I, too.
I'm only bringing into question his judgment on who he finds worthy of a spot in the Hall .... who "Matters" as he puts it, a consequence of his tastes.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 12:18pm


"I can give you examples that I know of, if that is necessary."

Please do

Posted by LLIIAAMm on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 12:29pm


"Please do"

OK. But I'd like to wait for Willaim to be able to respond to the general post first, if he chooses.
Otherwise this could quickly get obfuscated and sidetracked. Once again, I'm not pushing an indictment of William's musical tastes.
I just disagree with his book of induction laws.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 12:51pm


"But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different." -W
is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is."

In perusing these posts, I think William can at times be snobbish, but so what? We all can. Shawn has made some good points too, but I think the point William was making, my take, is that there are plenty of great sounding artists that we all may listen to, but were not necessarily very innovative or influential. I mean there has to be some level of stringency, otherwise everyone would get in.

Of course, the problem lies with who are those artists that one may listen to quite a bit, but just don't seem to cut it for the hall. I know for me that might include: Journey, Styx, Blue Oyster Cult, Kansas, etc.

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:16pm


Who is this??

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:44pm


Ryan is our old pal, come back to try and slip back into the debating.

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:45pm


Old pal!!!!!!! Peek-a-boo, we see you Michael.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:48pm


Hey, I'll even do your next comment for you, "Ryan":

"Huh? Who's "Anon"? Surely this is a mistake?"

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:54pm


Nicely done, Liam. May I help too?

"I can only tell you I know nothing of a Michael or Anon. If you don't believe me, just read this note I have brought from my friend, Matzo Ball. He'll vouch for me."

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:00pm


Hahahahahaha!!! Can you imagine the look on his face right now?!

Or even his face?

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:04pm


--- Posted by Anonymous on the John Mellencamp page on Friday 3.16.07 @ 17:47pm:
"When you write songs that say: "Don't you feel Jesus in a small town" that just does not seem to cut it for me.."

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:16pm


-- Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:16pm:
"..those artists that one may listen to quite a bit, but just don't seem to cut it for the hall."

And you "just don't seem to cut it for" me, Michael.

You don't get off that easily now. Show us enough respect to fess up, acknowledge your past stupidity, repent and eat your crow, or shut the hell up and get bent.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:17pm


Look, I 'm just trying to have a conversation here, leave out the references to this anon character. Not sure why you keep bringing him in.

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 15:16pm


You're beyond pathetic, Michael.
Drop the act and we can start fresh.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 17:11pm


I do not understand how MY name is blocked, and yet he is allowed to repeat his rampages of stupidity as he so pleases.

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 17:21pm


"is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is. "-shawn

No it isn't, you Mr. Contrarian. It's the difference between a pretty painting and a masterpiece, between a good movie and a classic. I'm not saying I'm 100% right, and it's up for debate if anyone disagrees with my picks or vice versa, but there IS a difference, and it does matter.

"Because tell me - In Specifics - the artists that "matter".

You won't do it. Because it insults you, irritates you - the question itself is an affront to the priviledges of your perch."-shawn

I've given my opinion on artists that matter plenty of times. The question doesn't bother me a bit unless you're asking for a comprehensive list or trying to goad me into compromising my principles (like the above question where you asked my must-haves from pre-1980). But here's the thing: The best part about my criteria is that anyone can argue them. I don't have to tell you who "matters" because a thousand other people can do it for me, and provide reasoned, compelling arguments. I could care less about a simple difference of opinion if it is well-reasoned, but I like to think I can smell bullshit, and most people reek of it. Read a handful of random posts on this site from non-regulars and tell me that's "elitist."

"Epiphany is a common word that fit just fine there in describing an artist that appeared on the scene and in historical perspective manifested itself as something of a deity or essential paragon for a genre."-shawn

No, it wasn't. An epiphany is a sudden realization. It does not fit in the sentence at all in any context. And it's not being "nitpicky," I think, when it honestly grates on my nerves and I've tried to ignore it. The subtext remark is perfectly valid as well, and I explained why. You purportedly "meant" something that could in no way be intuited from what you said.

Posted by W on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 19:43pm


"You're beyond pathetic, Michael."

Wait, I thought I was anon, now I'm some guy named Michael?

"but there IS a difference, and it does matter."

100% agree

"No, it wasn't. An epiphany is a sudden realization. It does not fit in the sentence at all in any context."

Agreed too.

"I do not understand how MY name is blocked"

Do you really not understand?

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 20:17pm


"but I like to think I can smell bullshit, and most people reek of it." - W

Gimme an E! Gimme an L! Gimme an I! Gimme a T! Gimme an I! Gimme an S! Gimme a T!

ELITIST!!!!!

"it honestly grates on my nerves and I've tried to ignore it."

Please, William, just get over your self. Learn some humility, if only for your own sake.

Posted by L on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 04:10am


And Michael, stop trying to suck up.

Posted by L on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 04:12am


The cheerleader routine was lame the FIRST time. Now it's just annoying.

Once again, read some of the comments on here. Count up the number of good, well-reasoned arguments vs. the number of "omg i luv these guys they should get in cuz they rock!" See which you have more of at the end.

As George Carlin said: "Think of how dumb the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are dumber than that."

Posted by W on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 07:08am


I was not sucking up at all. On the contrary, I agreed with what he said, thats all, so I agreed. What should I have done? That expression comes to mind, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Posted by Ryan on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 09:09am


"Epiphany is.." -shawn

"No..An epiphany is a sudden realization. It does not fit in the sentence at all in any context. And it's not being "nitpicky," I think, when it honestly grates on my nerves and I've tried to ignore it." -W

The sudden intuitive perception/insight use is the one used most commonly. Lesser used is the way I used it. It honestly grates on my nerves the way your nerves work sometimes.

--Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
--2. an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity.

--American Heritage Dictionary:
--A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something.

Go eat a dick of your own, proffesor.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 10:24am


"What should I have done? That expression comes to mind, damned if you do and damned if you don't." - Michael

Easy answer: you should have shut your f**king cramhole and salvage some of your dignity by ackowledging and apologizing the obvious and not SPEAKING AGAIN until you do so. You are currently damned by your own hand, not by any of us.
Fu*king idiot.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 10:29am


Honestly, not the slightest clue what you are talking about. What's with inititiating all this hostility? Oh, btw the way, thanks for the definitions. Now, go look up "loser" - it will likely say someone with no life who obsesses over a music website and argues with strangers over petty nonsense using verbose and "flowery" language. Then it will have a picture of you with the name "Shawn." You asshole.

Oh, and btw, I am Ryan and not someone else!

Posted by Ryan on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 10:48am


Try all you want to cram words in where they don't fit, but the usage is still incorrect. Let's read it together:

"If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the epiphany for a genre today, are you saying that their spoilage date has expired and their historical significance and time in the sun is irrelevant."-shawn

Now your definitions:

"--Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
--2. an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity.

--American Heritage Dictionary:
--A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something."

Now when it says "appearance," I assume you understand it means a visible presence (whether real or imagined), and not that it seems a certain way. If you're trying to use the word to say an artist seems like a deity to artists today, then it just does not work, and I've calmly and coolly explained why. Sour grapes.

Posted by W on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 11:25am


Oh please Michael, the chances of a new person coming to this site so quickly after you were kicked off are minimal. That's forgetting about how obvious you make it with the general style of writing.

Posted by l i a m on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 13:33pm


I can't believe our original debate over time and an artist's historical relevance has been wittled down to this. For fu**'s sake.

I really can't believe that you are hung up on this - you really can't see that I could have wrote: "If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the manifestation of the meaning for a genre today...

or: "If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the deified appearance of the essence of a genre today.."

You really are having an impossible time comprehending that usage? For fu**king real now?

Epiphany for a genre: as in the personification of inspiration, clarity, etc.
The Avatar (that better?), the touchstone, the spark?
Why are you being so deliberately contradictaory, William? What-the-Fu**k?

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 19:23pm


William, despite presently wanting you tell you to bite it, I have much respect for you and would just as soon drop this argument that has turned curiously petty.

I will say that because of the regard I have for you and your normal sanity, I must guess that something more than my use of a word has irritated you about me.

Is it as simple as having your views challenged, or is it because I called you a hipster, or something else?

Not that I need your sanction; I'm only curious.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 19:41pm


I'll repeat it Michael ---- fu**ing pathetic.

You used to like to use the word "verbose" when you were anon, too.
Fool.

William, who do you think this Ryan is?

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 19:44pm


Man this place is sure intense considering its for what's supposed to be a pleasurable activity-the enjoyment of Rock & Roll!!!

Fell like Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack-"Now I know why tigers eat their young."

I'm not gonna write any more here till I bring my high school English teacher and consult my lawyer for fear of a slander suit.

Posted by Arrow Man on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 22:58pm


"I'm not gonna write any more here till I bring my high school English teacher and consult my lawyer for fear of a slander suit." -arrow

Funny, Arrow - I laughed!
You may also want to consult your local forensic psychologist and music critic while you're at it.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 09:17am


"You may also want to consult your local forensic psychologist and music critic while you're at it."

LOL!

Posted by l i a m on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 09:23am


Cohen's the only one I could be said to be happy about.

I've always straddled the fence on Mellencamp, and I guess now that he's in I have one less way to hurt my groin (fences are pointy).

Madonna's induction encourages me in a strange way. At least now we have proof they aren't going to ignore the 80s altogether, although whether they make the right choices (The FVCKING REPLACEMENTS) remains to be seen.

And really, I can't be bothered enough to give a shit either way about Donna Summer and the Dave Clark 5. Just keep the speeches short and the stage clear for Mr. Cohen, you jerks.

ps: hi!

pps: Am I to assume that absolutely nothing has changed here since last I came?

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 12.25.07 @ 18:26pm


Actually Kit, there has been a rather big change of which you indirectly acted as a player.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 12.25.07 @ 19:29pm


Well don't I feel like the prettiest belle at the ball now. Went back and read this thread and apparently anon is banned. Well glory be.

I can't explain my absence other than the failure to nominate either Sonic Youth or The Replacements sent me on a deep spiritual journey until a couple hours ago when I clicked on the wrong bookmark and ended up here. It's a christmas miracle!

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 12.25.07 @ 20:23pm


Little Kit Cratchet's bad mouse aim has brought him back to our fold; 'tis truly a Christmas miracle. God bless us, everyone!

Now if we could only convince crazy Ebeneezer Michael/Anon/Ryan/Matzo Ball/A Rush Fan to repent and come forth from under his "you-can't-see-me" hidey sheet and stop his pathetic clown act, we'd have the perfect end to the year here in our little blogging town.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 12.25.07 @ 21:51pm


Ha, The Ventures got in, Kit, not Donna Summer. Shows how much you care. ;)

Posted by Casper on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 00:58am


I hate insomnia. But I want to thank you boys. After reading this load of snore, I should be able to fall back to sleep with no problem.

Are you boys the 4 Horsemen? Really, you all are scaring me. If I was walking down the street and had my choice of walking past the bunch of you or a M/C club amped on a Crystal Meth, I would choose the M/C club.

I have debated some issues with the bunch of you and now I am sorry that I did. Really boys, you are debating criteria of induction into a badly designed building that was created for no other reason except to make money and prop up the RnR antichrist himself - J. Wenner

I truly hope you all had a good Holiday and I wish you the best of all New Years. And thank you again for helping me with my insomnia.

FYI - The 2008 inductees are a nice safe bunch. But they have bypassed far more deserving, although I do like the Cohen pick.

I will agree with you that The Replacements are all that. Great f'n band.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 01:55am


Hey, Kit. Don't be surprised if said-familiar-someone starts spamming, or blindly attacking you.

ps: hope you all had a great holiday!

pps: I'm sure you're wondering, Kit, why my name has changed...

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 07:32am


First off, been out of it for a few weeks. Reading over these posts, I gotta laugh. First off, I have nothing against Kit, so I will not be attacking him Liam. BTW, just to set the record - I was never "kicked off" of the site here - I chose to leave b/c it was getting lame and boring. In reading the posts I see that Liam continued his annoying banter with other bloggers and was even banned for awhile - oh, the irony.

And, Shawn has been "arguing" with William, which he rationalizes as "I really respect you." - The lady hath doth protest too much...and yes Shawn, I read some of these posts, and finally someone (i.e. William) told you to stop with the flowery language and stupid analogies - they annoy everyone.

I also see Shawn is convinced that I am anyone who does not agree with him. You are wrong about all of it, but who cares. But, it does make for good laughter.

"you indirectly acted as a player"

C'mon, Shawn are you that much of geek that you write things like that. How immature. I think once you mentioned that you are in your mid 40's, yet you act like a teenager. Your pathetic, and yet you do not see it. Now, c'mon Shawn, bring it on - you know you will respond with some pathetic, flowery response.... Lets, see, will it start with, You are not a real man, blah, blah, blah....you are so predictable.



Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 08:57am


"Shawn are you that much of geek that you write things like that." - some loner dork

Yeah, obviously.

I forgt to ask: How was Christmas at the homeless shelter?

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:08am


"they annoy everyone."

Wait, I thought that you need something called empathy before you can claim that.

Now get lost. No one wants you here, values your opinions, or even likes you.

You see, I can guarantee that the above is true

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:11am


Weren't you banned? Now wasn't that for a reason? Take a look in the mirror. And, don't speak for "everyone" because that is a lot of people...ass hole.

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:19am


BTW, I do hate to admit it, but the homeless shelter comment was funny and I did laugh.

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:20am


"they [some random shit about shawn] annoy everyone." - Anon

"And, don't speak for "everyone" because that is a lot of people...ass hole." - Anon

Conclusive evidence that you're a hypocrite.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:38am


"Weren't you banned? Now wasn't that for a reason?"

So how could you have known that if you'd "been out for a few weeks"? Don't tell me you read it in the comments, because I wouldn't believe you.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:40am


I used the term loosely - you truly meant it.

Obviosuly, I knew you were banned b/c I can read. And, if you don't believe me that is fine and naturally your choice. I'm not going to try to convince you...

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:44am


"I used the term loosely"

You use terms loosely so often that I can tell when it happens - I only brought it up to show you up as the true hypocrite you are.

"Obviosuly, I knew you were banned b/c I can read."

Hmm, what humourous play on words could I insert here? How's about:

So that's means you never knew I was banned?

"I'm not going to try to convince you... "

Because you can't, and never do.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:52am


Actually Liam, ANON does peak the truth when he says that you don't speak for everyone. In fact, during the few months that I have perused this site, I have noticed that you are liked by very few. As I have said in previous comments, you certainly know music, however, that doesn't mean that your opinion holds sway over others. In fact, your opinions seem to have the opposite effect. Perhaps you don't realize it, but the opinions that you and your boys make do come off as a bit elitist. It seems that anyone who disagrees with you have zero knowledge about the subject matter being discussed. And if you don't get your way, you all tend to get a little offensive in your comments. And in doing so, those who you would look to have dialogue with only focus in on your attacks. I see that you went after someone on the GnR site because he challenged your choice of words. Perhaps you really do not wish to have dialogue accept with those who think like you do.

I am in no way attempting to bait you into any kind of blogging war of words. There would be no money to make in that. I do actually respect some of the opinions that you, Shawn, Kit and Casper have. As a fellow fan of Rock and Roll, all I am saying is acccept the fact that not everyone has the same taste in music, nor does everyone see eye to eye with you regarding the criteria for the HoF. I don't even think the nominating committee sees eye to eye on it.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 09:59am


This is pathetic. You are Michael. This is how you've decided/reacted to go about doing this...really? Really? You're going to
A) Pretend like you weren't Matzo Ball or Ryan (how committed are you to this sad, silly little farce you've crapped out now - will we ever hear from either of those two again?)
and
B) Ignore/pretend like you didn't humiliate yourself grotesquely by pointing at liam for aliases and I for posting ridiculous Mexican aliases when ALL ALONG you have been so,so,so, sooooo pathetically gulity of assuming a new identity as Anon fand A Rush Fan for the purposes of avoiding being humiliated as Michael and actually referencing yourself in support?

You are the absolute epitome of Dork, Michael. You are beyond absurd. You seem to have NO shame, NO humour, NO humility, NO trace of what the fu*k is going on and NO respect for any of the regulars here who have to deal with your fu**ing ridiculous ass here --- You have NO check on your appetite for frustrated stupidity, man.

You are the quintissential buffoon, the village idiot, the resident troll. I will not waste one line of text "defending" myself against any of your tedious, no sense prattle.

If the admins had any mercy on the rest of us, they would block your I.P. address to vaccinate this site from your insufferable and endless antagonizing presence.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:04am


Thank you Dameon - he does not get that he comes off a bit rough on the edges, depsite that he does seem to possess a good working knoledge of music. Oh, well...and, yes Liam I READ that you were banned this morning / last night as I was reading through some of these posts since I was away for 2-3 weeks - I am not even sure where you were going with that one??

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:04am


Hey Michael, could you have made it a bit more obvious that you are Dameon?

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:09am


Hey Shawm, it looks like Dameon was more in agreement with me. Reading your post is funny though, more flowery and annoying language. Shawn, the point here is that who cares?? - and I am sure the adminstrators could care less either- so please get a life. So, are you going to tell me that I am so terrrible, yet yourself and Liam have never had any run-ins with anyone? C'mon...and please stop with the flowery talk...it annoys me.

Liam - I am not Dameon - he obviosuly saw our conversation and chimed in. I know, you cannot fathom the possiblity that someone could actually think you are annoying. In fact, you are so defensive, that in all of these recent posts I have complimented you twice (i.e. your humor and knowledge of music), yet you cannot see this...oh, well

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:15am


Yeah, I mean you copuld have at LEAST gotten "Anonymous" and "Dameon" to hi-5 each other or shout "POWER RANGER - UNITE!!!"

Also, I believe that MY NAME was blocked due to my choice of words used against Hey Joe.












Although, we all know "Hey Joe" really was, don't we, "Anonymous"?

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:15am


Liam, I'm not so sure that is true. The aliases that are ridiculously obvious are so becuase of his easily identifiable voice, syntax, style; he's even so fu**ing clueless as to use indentical phrases sometimes. But if you get frantic and accuse every dissenting name as Michael, it plays into his stupid strategy of trying to confuse everybody to the point of madness. Dameon has been around since he and I disagreed on Def Leppard; I doubt Michael would be stupid enough to assume the name of an actual poster.

By the way Dameon, though I still don't agree that Def Leppard specifically belongs in the Hall, I do appreciate your recent stance of inclusiveness and do tend to side with your perspective on that. I apologize for being abit too insulting on our past Def Leppard posts.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:18am


You actually expect us to call you Anon and not Michael, you King Ass?

Your history:

"THE FACT IS RUSH ....HAS PENETRATED OUR CULTURE...
...Family Guy makes reference to (Tom Sawyer), with a stoned Chester Cheetah declaring "Oh god! There is no ####ing drummer better than Neil Peart!" as the song plays in the background. (He mispronounces Neil Peart's name, however.) " -Michael

"Being joked about in Family Guy isn't a sign of stature.... You may not have noticed in your fervent copy/pasting, but those Family Guy references were casting Rush (and their fans) in a negative light." -Kit

"As for the family guy reference - the cheetah says with tom sawyer playing, Neil Peart is the greatest rock drummer of all time...sounds pretty positive...and even if it was sarcastic...it is still funny and sheds light on how much this "drummer" has effected (sic) us all.." -Michael

Fu**ing ass.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:21am


Sorry if I believe it to be a BIT convenient for Dameon to pop-up and say hello, especially right now.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:30am


Dameon is dameon.
Michael is/has been:
- Anon
- A Rush Fan
- Matzo Ball
- Ryan
- Jim
- (possibly/probably)Hey Joe

Seeing me and Kit communicate and being talked about, esp when Kit said he sees that anon was "banned" (which laughably Michael cannot - typically - percieve was meant figuratively) was apparantly just too much for his bitter pride to handle, and he has come charging back in here naked, soiled, drunk and bold.

We will never be rid of him; how can you impress upon an idiot child the concepts of shame and humility? It doesn't translate to him through his idiot swamp of a mind. It is hopeless.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:37am


"how can you impress upon an idiot child the concepts of shame and humility?" - shawn

Well, it'd be difficult to invoke corporal punishment over the net.

Yeah, I'm also pretty suspicious of maplejet. He's often attacked William for being "elitist", as did/does Michael. Aswell as that, maplejet "came back" around the time "Anonymous" left us. Not conclusive, I know, but I'd keep an eye out on him.

As for Dameon, I think that integrating a "new player" so early, and not using him to support any of his other aliases, is probably to smart for someone like Michael to contemplate doing.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:44am


Shawn, nice try, but you are wrong. You are the pathetic loser here. You should be ashamed, a man in his mid 40's arguing with people here on some cheesy blog - like a 12 year old. Pathetic.

And, no it was not about you and Kit, but simply the fact that I am on vacation now and had the time to look back over the site for the past few weeks I have not been here. The fact that you and your "friend" Kit were chatting at that time was incidental. But, listen, would love to stay and chat, but I gotta get back to the shelter -

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:44am


I won't even bother arguing with that sh*t.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 10:57am


If any of the admins want to give me a late Christmas present, they could block Michael's IP address before he continues to deface this website.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 11:00am


"But, listen, would love to stay and chat, but I gotta get back to the shelter -"

Did I give you permission to rent my joke?

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 11:36am


Gentlemen - I first commented on this board regarding Def Leppard's inclusion into the HoF discussion, for which I was thoroughy beaten on for by Shawn, Anon and one or two others. I do not know who Michael is, nor do I care. He's not me!! Also, I have no idea who Anon is and as he mentioned, he and I disagreed regarding D.L. I have no need to to get into some silly war with anyone on an internet site. I happen to love music and it seems that somewhere along the line, some of you forgot what music is. It is a form of expression and entertainment! How you want to view the various artists that provide it is clearly up to you. Not everyone is going to agree and to try and bang your opinions into someone else's head is a completely irrrational notion. At times, some of you sound like the knuckleheads that occupy the White House. I enjoy reading many of your comments regarding the bands that you love. I have learned from it and will actually give some bands that you have raved about another listen. But sometimes you all seem to comment just for the sake of pissing someone off. You present wonderful arguements about why you do or don't like a certain bands inclusion into this disaster called the HoF and then you throw away whatever creditability you have by ragging on someone else who offers a different viewpoint. You use vulgarity when there is no logical reason for it, especially you Liam. And that to me is very sad. Like I said, I hope you all had a great holiday and I do wish you a wonderful 2008.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 11:38am


"you throw away whatever creditability you have by ragging on someone else who offers a different viewpoint. You use vulgarity when there is no logical reason for it, especially you Liam."

Look, Dameon, maybe you aren't "one of them".

I use what you see as "vulgarity" simply because I find it amusing to do so. I'd reckon about 97 out of every 100 randoms dropped english classes, so why should I try and present a reasonable argument if they won't/can't?

You haven't been here long (I haven't either, but...) you haven't seen the volume of fanboy comments that get hurled onto this site. But if you hang around for one of the "fan forum" raids, where entire forums of people write crappy comments.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 11:47am


Look, Michael, you oozing sore of a human being: I am going to ask you, point blank, to answer this question directly: Are you denying that you were Michael first on the Rush page who argued with Kit, then Anon as of 2.4.07, as well as "A Rush Fan"?
Do you also deny that you are "Matzo Ball", "Ryan", and "Hey Joe"?

Besides your everyday assclown shit, this issue is at the core of your dignity and whether or not you will ever be met with anything but angry derision.

Answer the FU**ING question, colostomy bag.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 12:26pm


Liam - I am sure fans come onto this site and go crazy for the bands they enjoy. And if they want to take a minute to write "RUSH ROCKS", or "KISS SUX" then let them be, no matter which side you are on. This type of site allows fans to at least believe that their opinion means something. And I have said before, Wenner and company could give a rat's arse about what the fan thinks. I have read your writings and can tell you possess a great amount of intelligence. You don't need to respond to the "fanboy" comments. Choose the dialogue that you feel will give you some interesting conversation and leave the b.s. alone. Conversing, while not always agreeing is not necessarily a bad thing. I got ripped for the fact that I defended the Leppards inclusion even though, IMO and using the Keltner List as a rating tool, D.L. would and should be included. I won't say for sure, but I believe Shawn, Casper and Kit thought I was out of my mind because of this. I am not sure if you chimed in or not. I also believe that I actually made the mistake of being a bit arrogant myself when discussing Patti Smith and I regret that. Even though I find her to be lacking any musical appeal or talent, I cannot deny her influence on the mid 70's scene which I was part of. Her inclusion was justified and who the hell am I to tell her fans that I thought she was a piece of dog manure. I should have just stated my opinion and let it go at that.

So I will end this ramble by saying that whether you agree or disagree, don't take this to its lowest common denominator of "You Suck", "No, you suck" bullsh*t. I never have a problem to "agree to disagree".

Again, I wish you and the boys a great 2008.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 12:27pm


Dameon; imagine all the fanboys rolled into one, then allowed to rot in their own self absorption for a few days, and then grown into a single being.

The image that currently insults your mind is that of Michael, who also goes/went by the names of: "Anonymous", "Matzoball", "Ryan", " A Rush Fan" and perhaps even "Hey Joe". He has been assaulting us with his limited appreciation of music, self arrogance and Rush mentions for quite some time.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 12:36pm


Liam - I believe they are called "trolls' on sites like this. Instead of engaging someone like this, then friggin ignore them. These are people who are looking and relishing your angry responses. They get some perverted kick out of it. If you ignore them, trust me, they get bored and go away. If you want to experience annoying trolls and antagonism just for the sake of it, go check out the fan message boards for the Yankee's and Red Sox. Trust me, you will see what I am talking about. There is a hundred years of hatred between these two fandooms. But believe it or not, when the trolls are ignored, you would be amazed at the intelligent dialogue that takes place between fans of these two bitter sports rivals.

I do not believe that the Anon that I have had dialogue with is one of these trolls or this Michael that you speak of. We have had disagreements and they were always civil.

Enjoy the music Liam! As the Stones said "I know it's only rock and roll, but I like it"

Def Leppard Rules!!!!!!!!!!! ;-}

Well, actually, the Beatles, the Who and Dylan rule. After that, it is all second tier. Jeff Beck also - if I had three wishes, playing guitar like Beck would be one of them - lol

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 12:50pm


Dude, the image of me being a colostomy bag made me laugh out loud!

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 12:50pm


Hey, you haven't experienced Anonymous to the full. Just wait 'til you see him for what he really is.

And Anon, you're still yet to answer Shawn's question.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 12:59pm


Been asked and answered.

I think it is funny though that we all type anonymously on this web page, cursing and behaving in ways no one would ever act in person. No one really knows anything about anyone, except for what little someome would share personally. No one even knows what he or she looks like. Yet, Liam says, "Wait til you see him for what he really is." Huh??

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:04pm


"cursing and behaving in ways no one would ever act in person."

No, we're not all autistic. I don't act much differently on here than I do in life. I highly doubt that you are the articulate, open, knowledgeable guy that you are inferring that you are.

"No one even knows what he or she looks like. Yet, Liam says, "Wait til you see him for what he really is." Huh??"

Oh. My. God. Wait, did you ACTUALLY think that I was talking about "physically" seeing you for what you really are?? Ahahahahahahahaha!!! You're a real hoot, in spite of all the stupidity.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:15pm


No, I was merely making the point that we are all unknonwns both physically and in character and then you make some ironic statement about getting to "really" know someome here.

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:25pm


"No, I was merely making the point that we are all unknonwns in character"

Not really. Words expose you far more than you'd probably be comfortable knowing.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:34pm


I disagree, anononymity makes us all behave much differently than if we were speaking in person. Unless, Shawn is the type of guy that would go to his local store and call someone a colostomy bag :-)Maybe he would, but somehow I doubt it. BTW, where have you been?

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:38pm


"No, I was merely making the point that we are all unknonwns in character" - Anonymous

You can get a pretty good picture about people by what they say - even YOU.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:38pm


"Def Leppard Rules!!!!!!!!!!! ;-}" - dameon

I actually could make a case for Def Lepp's induction, if we view the Hall as completely populist and as a simple recorded history of rock time, rather than so much of an award/honor type approach. Intheir time, like their music or not, they WERE massively successful and ubiquitous, and some will say that qualifies as "significant", even "impactful".

Again Dameon, my apologies for being so rough with you before.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:41pm


I got a better idea - why don't you all let this go. Trust me Liam, if Anon was a troll and wanted to egg me on, he couldn't. If a Red Sox troll canot get under my skin, no one can. Like I said before, there is no money in it for me. And Anon, let this die man. Like you said, no one knows who the other person is on this site. Therefore, the arguement of who said what just isn't important. I just think you guys have gotten so used to battling each other that you forgot how to have a decent dialogue.

I have a better arguement - why does this Rock and Roll Hall of Fame even exist? And better yet, why do these anti-establishment Rock Stars (isn't that what a rockstar is suppoed to be)even care if they are inducted or not? I will at least give that to John Lydon aka Rotten. I don't believe he really cared. Good for him. I know that is one place that I will never go to visit.

Suzanna Hoffs Rulez!!!!!!!!!! Well, at least she was hot!!

Will someone please send Wenner copies of the following albums (showing my age):

Any Deep Purple Album
Killer, Love It to Death, Billion Dollar Babies (Alice Cooper)
Trilogy, Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery (ELP)
Anything by the Cure and the Replacements
Pyromania and Hysteria (Don't start with me!)

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:43pm


"I disagree, anononymity makes us all behave much differently than if we were speaking in person."

No, we're not ALL freaks

"Unless, Shawn is the type of guy that would go to his local store and call someone a colostomy bag"

No, not just anyone. I'd definitely call someone like you a "colostomy bag", and I can recall times when I've done and said similiar things.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:44pm


"Will someone please send Wenner copies of the following albums (showing my age):

Any Deep Purple Album
Killer, Love It to Death, Billion Dollar Babies (Alice Cooper)
Trilogy, Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery (ELP)
Anything by the Cure and the Replacements
Pyromania and Hysteria (Don't start with me!)"

Yeah, and if anyone does, be sure to stick a death threat in there, too. Prefferably using newspaper cuttings.

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:48pm


"Been asked and answered." -Micahel

Bullshit. Big, hot pile of bulllllllllshit.
You have not even come close to confronting this elephant in the room. You are avoiding this direct, frank issue with every fiber of your idiot being.
Answer me, you fu**ing troll; deny it or admit it, right fu**ing now:

Are you denying that you were Michael first on the Rush page who argued with Kit, then Anon as of 2.4.07, as well as "A Rush Fan"?
Did you in fact, do this in order to avoid the embarrasment of having screwed your credibility by botching the names of The Ronettes and Grandmaster Flash and to conjur up imaginary friends who would support Michael. (holy crap this is so agaonizingly pathetic every time I reflect on the real facts... you are such a collosal dork, Michael. I staggers the mind)

Do you also deny that you are "Matzo Ball", "Ryan", and "Hey Joe"?

Answer me now.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:48pm


"I disagree, anononymity makes us all behave much differently than if we were speaking in person."

That's exactly how it exposes us. There are no real life ramifications, so we are in fact free to speak with more freedom than in our everyday lives. If you'll forgive a quick foray into crudeness, just because I don't tell my friend that I would like to smash her back doors in doesn't mean I don't have that desire at some level.

"BTW, where have you been?"
I got busier and fell out of certain habits, and the holidaze have allowed me to slip back into them like a comfy pair of house shoes.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:53pm


"Therefore, the arguement of who said what just isn't important. I just think you guys have gotten so used to battling each other that you forgot how to have a decent dialogue." -dameon

With respect Dameon, you don't understand the history and the point that we have been pushed to with this asswipe. He isn't just obnoxious anymore - he stepped out to ridicule others for what was discovered he had done 10 x as egregiously and self-serving and grotesquely as anything he pointed at others for doing; his very presence is an offense now - he is so devoid of credibility that he should be vaporized. He DESERVES to have to face this and answer for it.

No way he gets off.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:55pm


Not needed Shawn - it is a pleasure to meet you in this cyber-world. And thanks for giving me my guilty pleasure. But I will say this again - Leppard was not part of the Hair Band scene. By the time all the 80's bands hit on their formula, they were trying to figure out how to keep Rick Allen and Steve Clark alive.

And if anything, give Leppard this - the drummer lost his f'n arm and they had the patience to stick by him and see what happens. If RnR is not about that, then I don't know what is.

The band lost a lot when they lost Steve Clark. They lost the soul of their music. And although Vivian Campbell is an excellent guitar player, he cannot bring to the band what Steve Clark did.

OK - end of my stumping for D.L.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 13:55pm


"the drummer lost his f'n arm and they had the patience to stick by him and see what happens. If RnR is not about that, then I don't know what is."

Yeah, maaaaaaaaaaan. No real rock n roller keeps both arms, it's just not cool.

(if you didn't find that funny, please imagine it being said by a stoned hippie listening to Screamadelica)

Posted by l i a m on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 14:03pm


Apologies for re-using a joke, but I really enjoy the solo albums the arm put out.

Posted by Kit on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 14:11pm


but I really enjoy the solo albums the arm put out.

As they used to say on American Bandstand - I give it a 70 because it had a good beat!

Sorry Rick!

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 14:17pm


"just because I don't tell my friend that I would like to smash her back doors in doesn't mean I don't have that desire at some level"

That is exactly my point - on this site you WOULD say it, but in person, you might think it, but for a host of reasons would not say it - thats my only point...


"botching the names of The Ronettes and Grandmaster Flash"

Not me - I am not Michael Billinglsey or whatever his name was. If you "know me" by now, I am much too conscientious to make such blatant spelling errors. And, no I was not Ryan or Matzo Ball either. Not Dameon, or Hey Joe either, and I can't remember the other names you claimed I was...but not them either, so move on -

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 18:42pm


"Not me - I am not Michael Billinglsey or whatever his name was" - Michael

Oh no. No fu**ing way. You are going to try to just deny that you are Michael? Dude, you freaking jackass - it is RIGHT THERE, in glorious black and white print on the Rush page starting 1.21.07 through Feb; there is no way of escaping this, you fu**wad! You are UNBELIEVABLE!
You did all of the classic "anon" stunts as Michael - LOL'ed, quoting Woddy Allen, quoting Wikipedia, quoting Rush lyrics, the crippling absence of perceptivness, the irrational, manic love of Rush - it is so tranparantly you; you have got to be kidding with this shit.

And your voice is just as recognizable as Matzo Ball, Ryan and Het Joe. Where are those guys now, all of a sudden?

This is but one, small example:

"You wouldn't happen to be a flaming homo, now would you?" - posted by "Jim" 12.24.07

"Rush is my "pet project" - you wouldn't by any chance be a homo - who speaks like that?"

Posted by Michael on Tuesday, 01.23.07 on the Rush page

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 19:44pm


"That is exactly my point - on this site you WOULD say it, but in person, you might think it, but for a host of reasons would not say it - thats my only point..." -Michael

ob·tuse /əbˈtus, -ˈtyus/
–adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

Geezus this is exactly the kind of thing we hate about you, you fu**ing halfwit. Kit's point is not simply that we act differently here than in face to face life; that is the first PART of his point, you fu**ing thick wad of styrofoam.
Kit was pointing out that BECAUSE you say things here that you really think/feel that you would not say in "real life" situations, it exposes us more accurately for who we are.

Let's read them side by side again:
"That's exactly how (anonymity)exposes us.
There are no real life ramifications, so we are in fact free to speak with more freedom than in our everyday lives." - Kit

and michael, again:
"That is exactly my point - on this site you WOULD say it, but in person, you might think it, but for a host of reasons would not say it - thats my only point..."

You actually have no point upon exam; the one you do try to fend up in wrecjless defense of being "wrong" is disconnected, misaligned and apropos of nothing - NOTHING!!!!!!!!!
It's fractured, alone, oddly off of point and awkwardly out of place, though it wants so badly to be included and relevant. Stupid and sad.

Just like you. And I am absolutely sure that you cannot see a fukking thing I am saying to you right now.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 20:03pm


Dude, take it easy - holy shit what’s with the exclamation points. I was merely looking at the behavioral manifestation and saying that it is different that is all. I was making a simple point that people behave differently on this site than in real life. Whether or not the way they behave here is "more" representative of who that person really is, is questionable and a different subject matter. And, if you think that it is more representative of who that person is, well, then that's not good for you Shawn considering the rudeness and vulgarity and two, why is a person a their crudest who they "really" are?

But, in actuality what is going on hear is a social psychological concept that has little to do with personal character. It is referred to as "Fundamental Attribution Error" in which people over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. The fact is, people behave differently here not because their "true" character "comes out", but merely for the situational characteristics. That, is, the social psychological concept that is at work here is that of "deindividuation", which is defined as, "a state of lowered self-awareness, a temporary loss of personal identity resulting from becoming part of a group, such as an army or a mob, but it can also occur in situations wherein people feel anonymous... Because people in a deindividuated mental state lose awareness of themselves, they ignore external evaluation of themselves by other people, and are unrestrained by their normal inhibitions. Deindividuation occurs when one loses one's social identity and behaves in a manner in which one usually would not behave."

Now, who is dumb?

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 12.26.07 @ 23:58pm


Shawn and Anon - Please forgive me for interjecting but it has occurred to me that you will never get each other to admit to anything. So why are you trying? And unless you are going to try and find a way to meet face to face and have a go at it, what is the point of it all? You clearly don't like each other, so why are you wasting your time and energy trying to prove or disprove some point that will not effect either one of your lives. How about we move on to a different subject.

One of my favorite bands to come out of the late 80's was a trio called "Kings X". Does anyone have an opinion on them?

Liam - I left you a final message on Def Leppard.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 05:27am


Honestly Dameon - as much as Shawn and I go back and forth - for me at least it is really not that serious. I really cannot speak for Shawn on this, but somehow behind all the rudeness, I am sure he is trying to be funny, but who knows for sure - mb he is really that pissed off about -IDK. I mean he called me a colostomy bag, which for whatever reason the imagery of the whole thing is still making me laugh, and suggesting to me that he really does not take this that serious. Anyway, to answer your question, no opinion on Kings X.

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 06:57am


"Now, who is dumb?" - michael

You are, still and forever as fukking dumb as a onion, boy.

Are you implying that your fantasy wealth of knowledge as a make-believe psychologist enabled you to pen that diagnosis and identify the pschological phenomenon at work here, Dr.?

And what of all the "flowery language"? I'd like to shove a dozen daffodils down your stupid gullet; how's that for flowery?

You are smart enough to be able to write all that crap about social psychology; is that what we are to believe?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 09:57am


"Not me - I am not Michael Billinglsey or whatever his name was. If you "know me" by now, I am much too conscientious to make such blatant spelling errors." -Michael

Hey nitwit - I haven't dropped the full name "Michael Billingsley" since over 3 weeks ago when I exposed you on the NOW DELETED 2008 Nominees page; where did you get this from unless:
A) You have been, as Liam pointed out, following and posting here from the very start, like 3 weeks ago..
OR
B) Know exactly what you did, who you are, who "Michael Billingsley" is and how "he" corresponds to this.

You are so collosolly stupid; you repeat and trip on your own dick constantly; you do all the work for me, ass.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 11:50am


You are smart enough to be able to write all that diagnostic crap about social psychology; is that what we are to believe - that your intellect as a doctor was the source of your words? That's what you would have us belive and you assert?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 11:56am


Shawn, I was not trying to "show off", but was merely pointing out what I think occurs here - that was it. It is a basic social psychology concept that I had remembered from some psych undergrad course from many, many years ago. Yes, it was well defined on the wiki web page, so I provided that definition - so what? Cutting and pasting is easier than typing unless of course one has endless free time, but since I have a family, a small business, mortgage, etc. I cannot spend endless time on this website.

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 16:32pm


"Shawn, I was not trying to "show off...I had remembered from some psych undergrad course from many, many years ago. Yes, it was well defined on the wiki web page, so I provided that definition - so what? Cutting and pasting is easier than typing... I cannot spend endless time on this website" - Michael

Bullshit; you just figured out that I was onto your cut and paste and now you are trying to wriggle out of the embarrassment - you plagueristic asshole with no psychology credentials whatsoever.
You're pathetic; you didn't even bother to quote "from Wikipedia": as your habit is.

AND -AND - AAAAAAAAND, you smug little asshole, you capped off your soliloquy with
"Now who is dumb?"
How would quoting Wikipedia have vindicated your suspect intellect in any way, shape or form?
You were clearly trying to pawn the Wiki pages ver batum off as your own thoughts; otherwise why have the audacity to ask, "Now, who is dumb?"

You're a chronic pig of a liar, Michael. You disgust me. How much shit can you wallow in before you gag?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 19:17pm


"And, Shawn has been "arguing" with William" - anon/michael

You leave yourself scattered around like rabbit droppings. You think I don't see that you are referencing the post early on in the debate between Willaim and I where you, as "Matzo Ball" said "OOO - is this a fight?" and I told you to shut the hell up, what you and I used to do was fighting, this is debating?

You're so fukking transparent, Smeagol.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 19:42pm


Shawn - you really need to calm down. I am not embarassed about anything. How ironic...how could I be embarassed when we are all anonymous. I think the point I made was valid. Who cares if I cut and paste the idea of deindividuation - it is really not a very complex concept - I was just lazy. Would you have felt better if I said that when there is anononymity, there is diffusion of self, and lowered inhibitions.

I am sitting here reading your post and scratching my head wondering, is this guy serious - the anger and hostility is pretty high. Is it just me, or does it seem that Shawn is about go off the deep end?? Shawn, this is all really not worth it - r u okay?

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 19:47pm


Michael, I have nothing more to say to you ever other than "Fu*k Off". I don't think I have ever met an individual as patheticLLY devoid of humility and character. You are an infected sore.

If we were all sitting around a table, I would have broken your stupid face with chair by now.

You are a coward. You have no credibility.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.27.07 @ 19:53pm


"I don't think I have ever met an individual as patheticLLY devoid of humility and character. You are an infected sore."

Met??

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 05:30am


Anon, I get the feeling that you really don't have much to say about music. You never seem to make any statements about it anymore. You don't appear to like any contemporary bands. You don't have an opinion on the 2008 inductions, even though that's what this topic is presumably about. At least shawn has something to say occasionally. Aren't there some psych message boards you can go troll?

Posted by Chuck on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 07:21am


Chuck (Shawn) I have plenty to say about music - I was merely responding to the bizarre notion that you "met" me ya weirdo.

Posted by Anon on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 07:40am


"I have plenty to say about music"...

But if I don't reference Rush [who really aren't as influential as you make them out to be], I have a panic attack

Posted by l i a m on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 07:47am


Anon, you have painted a far more vivid portrait of yourself here than a physical "meeting" could provide. And it's not a pretty picture.

Shawn is insane in his own right, but in a very different way than you are.

Posted by Chuck on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 07:56am


I have??? That is funny - Shawn you have painted a picture of yourself as a rude, hostile, vulgar and obsessed individual - look in the mirror. Now whether that reflects who you "really" are, I will never know and do not care to know.

I like a lot of bands besides Rush - there is always "the Boss" from my home state of New Jersey.

Posted by Anon on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 08:23am


"Shawn you have painted a picture of yourself as a rude, hostile, vulgar and obsessed individual"

I disagree entirely.

"I like a lot of bands besides Rush - there is always "the Boss" from my home state of New Jersey."

Yeah, wow. Rush and the Boss: two bands. Oh yeah, I heard you're a Smiths fan: three.

Posted by l i a m on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 08:27am


"Chuck (Shawn) I have plenty to say about music - I was merely responding to the bizarre notion that you "met" me ya weirdo." - asshole

You don't get to do this, tampon ball. There is no way I could live with myself by making up new people to rent support from as you do - I have too much respect for myself and others here (you notwithstanding).
I solemnly swear that those goofy Mexican names, so obvious to anyone with a sense of humor and trace of intelligence that were done with a wink,are the only time I have or will ever "fake" a post.

Chuck is a newby and we are two different guys. Ironic, because I actually just looked up Tegan and Sarah on his recommendation, as I did Animal Collective and Black Keys from Kit's.

Chuck, I completely surrender to your evaluation of me as being a breed of insane these past 3 days; I admit that I became quite rabid in my pursuit of trying to force Michael out into the open, but thank you for identifying, at least, that we are mad in very different ways.

For the record, in agreement with Kit's theory and contrary to your stolen parasitic Wikipedia "opinion", this blog does reflect who I am more nakedly than "real" life with all of its social graces and protocols. I say this, judge me good or bad, crazy or sane.
In real life I would go after a tick like Michael; I have a very low tolerance for stupidity, especially when it mixes into a toxic brew with smugness and dishonesty and wrethed character. I'm quite sure I would have planted my fist in your eye by now, Michael; but I doubt you would have had the courage to be such a belligerant liar and jackass in the physical presence of anyone here.

My name IS Shawn, I live in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ, I am 41 years old with 2 kids and a wife, have owned my own window cleaning business for 17 years as a sole proprietor and play sand volleyball 3 x a week. This is me - no being "Anonymous", as one butthole nugget likes to cringe in defense so often.

Fukk your anonymous garbage.

By the way, Chuck - thanks for the "look here" about Tegan and Sarah. They sound very interesting and definitely worth checking out. Twin sisters from Canada.... wow.
This is the main benefit Iget from this site: hearing about bands and artists from the rest of you that would not have otherwise crossed my path. I have so far come to hear from one or more of you, and love:
The Flaming Lips
The New Pornographers
Arcade Fire
The Decemberists
King Crimson
Happy Mondays
Supergrass
Nick Drake
Big Star
(others I am not remembering...)

I do apologize (some) for my fevered pursuit of a certain ass hair and will strive to ignore, as well as I can. But it is my nature to want to cut his head off.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 08:42am


"I like a lot of bands besides Rush - there is always "the Boss" from my home state of New Jersey." - shitstain

Noone gives a dog's ass who you like or what you think anymore. When you say things like Rush owes nothing to King Crimson and who cares if KC gets inducted, that R.E.M. is nothing more than a cheesey top 40 band, that the Pretenders are crap because they opened for The Who once, that Bob Dylan is crap, that a clearly derogatory Chester Cheetah shout out on Neil Peart on a Family Guy episode is "proof of how much this drummer means to all of us" ------- HAHAHAHAHA ---- you mangled any credibility you momentarily may have had months ago, Nancy.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 08:51am


Just out of interest, which Supergrass and Happy Mondays albums do you own?

Posted by l i a m on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 08:52am


"Just out of interest, which Supergrass and Happy Mondays albums do you own?"

"I Should Coco" and "Pills, Thrills..."
(you're twistin my melon, man!)

You think these were the right choices for first listens? What should I get as follow ups? Any I should avoid in their collections?

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 09:06am


Those two are definitely jewels in their makers' crowns. They were indeed the right place to start.

For the Happy Mondays, I'd say the next step is "Bummed". That said, you don't need "Yes, Please". Also, If you can find one, try and pick a copy of "It's Great When You're Straight...Yeah" by Black Grape. It's Shaun Ryder's (vocalist) next group after the Mondays deissolved, and that one album they put out definitely stands up with "Pills n Thrills" and "Bummed".

As for Supergrass, I'd just say that you should avoid "Supergrass/The X-Ray Album", unless you become a 'Grass fanatic. All the rest is superb, but if I had to pick ONE as a follow up to "I Should Coco", it'd be "In It For The Money".

Posted by l i a m on Friday, 12.28.07 @ 09:16am


shawn, I was wondering why you seem to hate Rush so much. I mean, I'm not really a fan but it's hard to deny that they've been influential, especially in Canada.

I think people here are just go by the "I think they shouldn't be in, therefore they shouldn't" philosophy.

There are a lot of groups I don't really like - Kiss, Def Leppard, Moody Blues, Yes, Genesis, etc. - but I wouldn't really care if they got in because they've certainly been influential.

Posted by Brian on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 00:34am


"I think people here are just go by the "I think they shouldn't be in, therefore they shouldn't" philosophy." - "Brian"

I love it how one person's own massive ego makes them think that it's everyone else who has an ego, and not them. And no, we don't ALL work by that philosophy - some of us like to talk about artistic merit - something Rush doesn't have alot of, I'm afraid.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 07:35am


No, once again whoosh over your head. What he is referring to is that if you personally do not like a band, so what? For many though they conclude, since I do not like this band, they should not get in. In other words he is questioning your objectivity as well as others. For example, I do not like the VU, but readily admit their influence and importance

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 07:57am


Now we know that Shawn is from the Phoenix area and Mitch (ANON) is a Jersey boy and I was born and rasied in NYC; I was just wondering where you are from Liam?

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 08:09am


England.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 08:21am


Anon, the irony, and hypocrisy, of your entire last comment is that you made it: it was YOU who put in YOUR opinion of Iggy Pop, and punks in general, being f*ck ups; it was YOU who called Primal Scream, the Stone Roses, My Bloody Valentine, Happy Mondays and Dinosaur Jr. "shitty underground bands", simply because you'd failed to hear about them.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 08:36am


"shawn, I was wondering why you seem to hate Rush so much. I mean, I'm not really a fan but it's hard to deny that they've been influential," -brian

Brian, I do not hate Rush. I hate that endless well of shit Michael/anon.
If you peruse these post pages you'll see I am in favor of their induction and acknowledge their longevity, sales, fanbase, influence and general phenomenon. I have no beef with Lee/Lifeson/Peart.

When someone splurts out inane statements dismissing The Pretenders, REM and KIng Crimson in blind, mad "support" of their fav band, one would think that that would sully that asses credibility to to the result of him shutting the hell up; one would be wrong when it comes to NY's own Master of Disguise.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 09:00am


The biggest names from the 50s and 60s not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame:

INDUCT NOW!!

Joan Baez
Judy Collins
Peter, Paul & Mary
The Kingston Trio
Harry Belafonte
Chubby Checker
The Monkees
Jan and Dean

EAT THAT!!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 07:04am


"Chubby Checker" -Roy

Never. Ever, ever, ever.
Would be a bigger goof than Percy Sledge and Bonnie Raitt combined.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 08:25am


This may be a bad comparison, but in Baseball, there are two different voting groups. One of the Writers Assn. who vote on each years new nominees. There is also the Veteran's Bd. which is comprised of retired players that view those who have been passed over by the Writers and are no longer allowed to be nominated for the Writers vote. Would it not make sense for the RnR HoF to do something similiar? Maybe actual artists would have a different take on those who Wenner and company did not feel deserved inclusion.

Obviously this would need to be laid out a bit more. Criteria would need to be set up to decide when an artist goes before the musicians group for vote. 5 years after eligibility, 10 years?

Anyway, it seems that this is the only way bands like Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, The Smiths, etc. would even have a chance.

I wonder if Wenner would even consider such a thing?

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 08:37am


"I wonder if Wenner would even consider such a thing?"

Never in a million years. That would require him to acknowledge that he missed someone deserving = being wrong.
Besides, there are no rules in place about artists' chances expiring.

As I've suggested before, outsourcing 2 nominations/inductions to outside writers like Pitchfork would infuse immediate excitement and upgrade the Hall's credibility. These 2 inductees could be voted on after the main pool, so they can fill in the gaps - thoughthere are so many, many right now that the hard part would only be picking from the refugees.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 13:48pm


I agree and I have no problem with outsourcing it, but I certainly would not go to another group of writers. I would still look to make up a committee based on Musicians who have already made the HoF. The last thing we need is more writers involved.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 14:03pm


"but I certainly would not go to another group of writers. I would still look to make up a committee based on Musicians who have already made the HoF. The last thing we need is more writers involved."

Are you aware of Pitchfork, Dameon? They've been around since the 90s, and have since built up a gathering of ardent musical followers. They can make (or break) any artist commercially, and it tends to go for innovaters. I think of them as "the NME that can still write a decent article". I think that they'd do a pretty good. Check it out:

www.pitchforkmedia.com

Posted by liam on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 14:22pm


Yea, I was going to steer you to Pitchfork's site too, Dameon; after checking it out you may feel differently. I believe that PF would do a very admirable and exciting job of picking 2 goodn's each year; they'd make some choices that Wenner & Co. never would.

But as for this issue of who should vote - I've heard it bemoaned that writers & critics make the worst choosers, but why? Isn't getting it out of the hands of the suits the best idea?
We all know that leaving it to a popular vote by the hoi poloi radio listeners would let in all manner of white trash.
What musicians would be included and which ones left out - semes to me you'd have mucj of the same problem you do now with record execs and it would all hinge on the crowd that was polled.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 14:44pm


I just checked out the web-site. Seems like they have a reasonably objective point of view, but I still have issues with writers/critics. But I will keep an eye on this site for the next few months and see if they are truly objective.

What musicians would be included and which ones left out - semes to me you'd have mucj of the same problem you do now with record execs and it would all hinge on the crowd that was polled. (Shawn)

As for which musicians, I think it can change each year and it would behoove all involved if several musicians from the various genres be given the vote, this way it is an all inclusive group.

IMO, I don't think anything will change until Wenner is out of the picture.


Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 17:37pm


I agree with you Dameon; as long as Wenner and his lackies are at the helm we will probably be infuriated one way or another year after year.

I would so love to see an alternative HOF created by smarter, more inclusive benefactors -- it could be done very easily.

I don't believe that all journalists and critics are full of it. A nice balance of writers and musicians would be ideal, yea? It all comes down to who sets the tone and the rules; right now it's "industry insiders" and all the bullshit that involves.

I will say this - although I will gripe endlessly about who WASN'T inducted this year, I don't have a problem with any one of the inductees; you can make a good case for all of them. After learning more about them, I like The Ventures getting in more and more.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 20:26pm


I agree that not all writers/critics are pompous a-holes, but as a group, I have way too much mistrust in them.

One thing which I have yet read about here has to do with the record companies. Are we to believe that they don't put some kind of pressure on the voting body for the artists which are on their labels. Induction into the HoF will spur additional records sales.

Music is still big business and $$$$$$$ rules.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 06:40am


You guys should check out the latest entry in "the Latest Rock Hall News" column titled "** Roger Friedman's Latest Rock Hall Screed", there on the left.
Interesting opinion and kinda funny; harsh, too!
Don't agree with him 100%, but he makes some fun objections.

Do you think that Leonard Cohen will show up at the ceremony, considering that he is 73 now?

Posted by shawn on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 08:43am


I believe that all the charting musicians from the 1950s and early 1960s should be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, no matter who they are or how good they were or how many hits they had. They should all be inducted just because they were a part of the foundation of Rock & Roll.

INDUCT NOW!!

The Big Bopper
Chubby Checker
Harry Belafonte
The Kingston Trio
Peter, Paul & Mary
Joan Baez
Judy Collins
Jan and Dean
The Monkees

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 05:48am


I'm wondering what the order of induction will be.

I'm guessing that they will save the big 3 for last: Leonard Cohen, John Mellencamp and Madonna. Leonard Cohen will get inducted after The Ventures, The Dave Clark Five, Little Walter, and Gamble & Huff. Then someone will perform Leonard's music. Then Leonard will perform. Then John Mellencamp will get inducted and perform, followed by Madonna. She'll get inducted, sing and get everybody in the audience standing up and dancing. Then they'll end the night with Leonard Cohen's music in the All-Star Jam. It's going to be so crowded on that stage since so many artists have covered Leonard Cohen. There is no telling what will happen and how many artists will show up. This could be a repeat of Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man. I can't wait to see if John Mellencamp, Madonna and Gamble & Huff say anything about Leonard Cohen in their induction speeches! That should be interesting.

My guess is that the Beach Boys or Eric Clapton will induct The Ventures. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr will induct The Dave Clark Five. Mick Jagger will induct Little Walter. There is no tellling who will induct Gamble & Huff. Bruce Springsteen or Bon Jovi will induct John Mellencamp. Don't even get me started with Madonna. There's a whole list of possibilities: Brittney Spears, Christina Aguiellera, Jessica Simpson, Mandy Moore, Destiny's Child, or maybe even Prince. Leonard Cohen could be inducted by Judy Collins, Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, Jennifer Warnes, Suzanne Vega or Bono and U2.

Come to think of it, the Rock Hall organizers might even decide to open and close the ceremony with Leonard Cohen.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 21:10pm


The 2008 Rock Hall Rundown

Leonard Cohen
John Mellencamp
Madonna
Kenny Gamble
Leon Huff


The Ventures
Bob Bogle
Nokie Edwards
Gerry McGee
Mel Taylor
Don Wilson

The Dave Clark Five
Dave Clark
Lenny Davidson
Rick Huxley
Denis Payton (1943-2006); died of cancer
Mike Smith - In October of 2003 he was involved in an accident in his home in Spain that resulted in severe injury to his spinal cord, and he was permanently paralyzed from the waist down and in his right arm, and with very little movement in his left arm. Wheelchair bound.

Little Walter (1930-1968); died in a street fight.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 21:13pm


Don't be shocked if she asks Bowie to induct her. He was her biggest influence.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 23:51pm


The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
1-212-484-1754
http://www.rockhall.com

The 2008 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony
Monday, March 10, 2008, starts at 8:00 PM
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
301 Park Avenue
New York, New York, 10022
Reservations: 1-212-355-3000

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum
1100 Rock and Roll Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(East Ninth Street at Lake Erie)
Museum Offices:216.781.ROCK
No Reservation Required
Pay at Door

If you are interested in attending any future Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremonies, this is the phone number to call: 1-212-245-6570. They will mail you the forms that you need to fill out.

Balcony seating is between $2000.00-$3000.00 per person
Ground level seating at round tables in front of the stage, which includes dinner, is $100,000.00 per person

Inductees get in for free, but their guests have to pay depending on where they are seated.

Only music industry people and musicians who've already been inducted are allowed to vote on who gets inducted into the Rock Hall each year.

The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation and Museum are non-profit organizations. They are exempt from paying taxes because they donate so much to music charities for starting musicians who need it.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 05:24am


I completely forgot about David Bowie. Madonna gave the induction speech for him. Ya, it will probably be Bowie who gives the induction speech for Madonna.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 05:30am


"Balcony seating is between $2000.00-$3000.00 per person
Ground level seating at round tables in front of the stage, which includes dinner, is $100,000.00 per person"

Ridiculous. I wouldn't pay a penny, and all the peple who can/would/will really don't know the first thing about music.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 09:42am


I think that the RnR HOF should induct the following people for 2009 despite their political views which I think prevented them from getting in the hall in the first place

Steve Miller
Jethro Tull
Ben E. King
Chubby Checker
Moody Blues
Carole King
Cheap Trick
Stevie Ray Vaughn

To me inducting John Mellencamp is the biggest mistake the hall ever made in its 20 years. In his place should be Steve Miller because of his great contribution to RnR and/or George Thurgood whose memorable guitar rffs in Bad to the Bone and Move it On Over are unforgettable to this very day. and Peter Frampton who made the talkbox a famous guitar acessory. All Mellencamp is remembered for is a song about 2 retards named Jack and Diane and his endless name changes

Posted by Lance on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 10:08am


I have one band who's being snubbed is an insult

BAD COMPANY

Posted by James on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 10:10am


"To me inducting John Mellencamp is the biggest mistake the hall ever made in its 20 years." - Lance

So lets induct Chubby Checker and make an EVEN BIGGER one!!!

Posted by liam on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 10:29am


Leave Chubby alone - he may not be worthy, but he is a nice enough person who did give us the Twist.

As for John Mellencamp - I am not really understanding his induction. I really don't care one way or another, but I really don't see where he did anything special. He recorded some good music, but nothing that was either innovative, influential or chart breaking. He never dominated any one genre. He did help start up Farm Aid with Willie Nelson and he writes decent truck commercials; but that is about it as far as I see.

But congrats to him and his fans anyway!

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 11:16am


"As for John Mellencamp - I am not really understanding his induction. I really don't care one way or another, but I really don't see where he did anything special." -dameon

Right. Not like those wizards of spandex Def Leppard and all of their appendages, severed ar attached. I see your point of reference makes you uniquely qualified to pass judgment on John Mellencamp.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 11:37am


Shawn - Are you in a battling mood today? There is one difference between Mellencamp and D.L. and that is the fact that D.L. did dominate for a short period of time where Mellencamp didn't.

Also, whatever your problem is with spandex; get over it. I remember seeing Stiv Bators, Brian James, Cheetah Chrome, and many others of the punk scene wearing spandex live and on stage. David Lee Roth said it best - "I wear spandex as to avoid having to go to the gym to work out before we go on tour."

You made your point with D.L. ages ago with me, so what is your point bringing it up here? I gave my opinion on Mellencamp - I like him; I own his vinyl and I certainly don't turn off the radio if one of his songs comes on, but I don't see his induction as being all that necessary. Not when there are bands like Deep Purple, Alice Cooper and CheapTrick which have not received this supposed honor. Is this your way of attempting to discredit me? Bait me into another one of your arguements? I don't think anyone really cares what I have to say. Some give an opinion, some don't. And I am thinking they are not caring much of what you are saying either. I know that for some people, the dominating of a blog is a big thing, but I thought you were better than that.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 12:12pm


Jeezus Dameon, who is trying to "dominate a blog"? I was just commenting back on your post; you do understand how this works right? It's not just a forum for one person's soliloquies.
You're making me want to tell you to shut up. Take that hand out of the ball you've just made it into, man.

I think there are many artists that should, ideally be in before Mellencamp, yea sure.
But he ceratainly has earned a place before Def Leppard. In their case it doesn't matter how much they may have "dominated" (a fanboy overstatement, btw) for some years compared to the quality of work that JM has crafted. If you want to champion sales and airplay, he was no slouch either; but that is not where his value lies, whereas with your awful pansy metal boys, sales is their claim.... that and their influence on the hideous hair band "genre" they perpetuated.

Yea, yea I know........ we've been through this already. But bring on the tirade, mister Rock of Ages never dies, here it comes......

Posted by shawn on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 15:02pm


Shawn - I am not the one who brought Def Leppard up in this conversation. I made no mention of them in my initial comments regarding Mellencamp. You are the one who brought D.L. into this conversation. As I mentioned, you made your point regarding D.L. a long time ago. I made no attempt to base an arguement for D.L. on my Mellencamp comment.

I understand how this forum works. It is supposed to be about an exchange of thoughts and ideas. The problem is that you attack. I am not even going to respond to your comments on D.M. I try not to insult people, except maybe Liam because he likes calling people f'n idiots. And I understands he uses it only for effect. I know our first exchange regarding D.L. got a bit ugly, but that was then and I am not going to go back in that direction.

I like Mellencamp. I own his vinyl and understand his importance to Americana (if that is the correct word). But when viewed against the failures of the HoF when it comes to so many other bands, I just don't see it. Aren't you the one who keeps bitching about King Crimson. Do you see anyway that Mellencamp belongs before some of these other heavy hitters. Do I have a problem that he is in; NO! If you look at the end of my first comment, you would see that I said congrats to him and his fans. I understand that we don't always get what we want. No reason to begrudge someone else.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 16:36pm


One last thing - I don't make ignorant comments. I may make a comment that is factually incorrect; then someone corrects me and I say thanks. But if I don't know something, I either ask a question or I just keep my mouth shut. So I repeat, I do not make comments based on ignorance.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 16:56pm


Thank you, Lance, for opening up the idea of a list of worthies. My list:

Pat Benatar
Cheap Trick
Deep Purple
Dire Straits (or Mark Knopfler)
Journey
Kiss
The Moody Blues
Rush
Ringo Starr
Donna Summer

Not that I would be able to prevent it, but feel free to contribute your own list, ridicule mine, ridicule Lance's, etc.

Posted by Joe on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 21:01pm


Okay, add Heart to my list.

Posted by Joe on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 21:04pm


To Shawn

Leonard Cohen will be attending the 2008 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony. As will his family and management.

Most recently he performed with Anjani and the Barenaked Ladies in Toronto, 2006.

Check YouTube

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 01.8.08 @ 10:06am


Madonna is not rock, she is as much pop/dance as Donna Summer who can sing much better than Madge. You guys got it wrong, also Donna Summer won a grammy for Best Female Rock Performance with Hot Stuff. Back then that was as much rock as a contemporary female could get. DO NO PIDGEON HOLE yesteryears dance pop performers, disco lives in rock, and I am not sugar coating that fact. Many honest rockers will agree!!!!!

Posted by ron on Tuesday, 01.8.08 @ 11:23am


Very cool - thank you, Roy.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 01.8.08 @ 16:37pm


Hey Gang! Madonna is in, so let's get over it and move on. She is in! Later.

Posted by Steven on Tuesday, 01.8.08 @ 21:52pm


Is the Writers STRIKE going to effect the Rock Hall Induction Ceremony?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 01.9.08 @ 13:18pm


Good question, Roy... really. I see where the Golden Globes have benn cancelled because of the strike.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 01.9.08 @ 13:54pm


The WGA only represents writers for film and television. The induction ceremony shouldn't be affected.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 01.9.08 @ 13:57pm


But the ceremony being televised (albeit VH1)doesn't apply to television writers?
I guess it's too much to ask the presenters to write their own stuff.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 01.9.08 @ 16:33pm


It's not really "television." It's a ceremony/show that just so happens to be televised. There's not a story or scripted dialogue, and as far as I know, the presenters have always written their own speeches.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 01.9.08 @ 22:49pm


I understand at that seems perfectly reasonable to me..... so why have the Golden Globe Awards, which operate under the same situation you point out, been cancelled?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.10.08 @ 00:07am


Because the WGA was threatening to picket the ceremony and the Screen Actors' Guild is showing solidarity.

Posted by William on Thursday, 01.10.08 @ 00:11am


I made a big mistake! Sorry!

Tables on the ground in front of the stage are 10 seats per table. If you are going as a group of 10, each person has to pay $10,000.00, not $100,000.00. So it's $100,000.00 for 10 people. If you are going by yourself and you want a table in front of the stage, you still have to pay $10,000.00, but you will have to sit at a table with people you don't know, but at least you get to see all the famous people walk by you.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.10.08 @ 16:43pm


This is where you will be able to watch the 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

http://spinner.aol.com/rockhall

This is taking too long! I can't wait any longer! Are we there yet?

Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,Leonard Cohen,

Posted by Roy on Monday, 01.14.08 @ 13:59pm


MY FINAL INDUCTION SPEECHES PREDICTIONS:

Leonard Cohen: Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Joni Mitchell, Jennifer Warnes, Suzanne Vega, or Bono.

The Ventures: The Beach Boys or Eric Clapton

The Dave Clark Five: Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr

John Mellencamp: Bruce Springsteen or Jon Bon Jovi

Madonna: David Bowie

Little Walter: Mick Jagger

Gamble & Huff: The O'Jays

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 01.15.08 @ 05:47am


Digital Dream Door
www.digitaldreamdoor.com

The 2008 inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame were announced last month. This year, a few artists who have been eligible for way too long finally made the cut. In order to be eligible for induction, an artist must have made their debut at least 25 years ago. This year's inductees include Madonna, John Mellencamp, The Dave Clark Five, Leonard Cohen, and The Ventures. Of these artists, Madonna is the only one who was eligible for the first time in 2008. This means that the other artists, who all seem like shoo-ins to me, have been on the ballot for awhile now, and finally got inducted after years of waiting. Leonard Cohen, in particular, has been talked about as an obvious inductee since 1992. His debut album, Songs Of Leonard Cohen, was released in 1967. It's nice to see the Rock Hall catch up on a few overdue artists.

So what will the Rock Hall look like in the future? Several notable artists have been eligible for a few years now, and are still likely to end up in the hall eventually. Such artists include Beastie Boys, Kraftwerk, The Stooges, Lou Reed, Deep Purple, T Rex, Love, The Moody Blues, New York Dolls, Tina Turner, Randy Newman, and Tom Waits. I strongly suspect that most of these artists make it within the next few years, especially as we approach the glut of mediocre eighties debuts. As for the first time inductees in 2009, The Smiths, Run DMC, and Stevie Ray Vaughan are the only artists in next year's class that will ultimately make it in. Even if all three make it next year, it still leaves a couple vacancies for the overdue artists mentioned above. Hopefully, the Rock Hall takes this opportunity to legitimize itself with the inclusion of a few artists that should have been inducted long ago.

Posted by Roy on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 08:06am


The complete biographies of all the 2008 Inductees have been posted on www.rockhall.com

Posted by Roy on Friday, 01.25.08 @ 18:58pm


The overall important thing here is that the truly ground-breaking and most popular acts remaining from the '60s and '70s should have been inducted by now.

While I don't disagree with the choices from the 80s,those acts could have waited. They're only inducting more acts from that decade to get people to tune into the show on VH1 and make their money from advertisers.

how else would you explain The Righteous Brothers jammed into the middle of what was an 80s night? I realy felt sorry for Bobby Hatfield not just for the 17 year snub but his voice was just not what it should have been. Then he passed on months later.

Apparently "Steve Marsh(mallow)",a voter for the "hall" is a former rock critic with his nose in the air. Inducting whom he feels like nominating and inducting like a primma donna dictator.

Marsh,you (like most rock critics) are a pathetic loser. Did you have a treehouse when you were young or something and exclude people from your private little club sitting on a branch too?

Why don;t you quit,before they throw your sorry,lousy taste in music,behind out?

Posted by Walter on Tuesday, 02.5.08 @ 15:52pm


"The overall important thing here is that the truly ground-breaking and most popular acts remaining from the '60s and '70s should have been inducted by now."

The way the sentences reads, it could be interpreted that you're saying "Popular = Groundbreaking". Which is bull.

"Marsh,you (like most rock critics) are a pathetic loser."

...says the guy who endorses KISS' induction.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 02.6.08 @ 10:26am


Remember what The Digital Dream Door said about Leonard Cohen last year?:

Only cult figure Leonard Cohen has questionable achievements to warrant strong consideration.

The most unusual rock "star" of all-time, a published poet and author before beginning his musical career in his mid-30's, his style was widely praised, but not altogether widely popular. Nevertheless he was the bridge between the folk movement of the 60's and the acoustic-based singer-songwriter 70's style. Cohen is a left-field candidate who'll get support from some circles but who's achievements are far too limited to be deserving over so many artists who've yet to get in. The nomination itself should really be the limit of his recognition from the Hall.

NOW LOOK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT LEONARD COHEN:

Leonard Cohen
Hundreds of candidates still waiting for a look from the Hall have legitimate reasons to be angry at the selection of Cohen, who now becomes by far the least qualified Main Performer to be inducted in the Hall's 23 years of existence. It's not that Cohen was a bad artist by any means, he was actually very unique, bringing a poet's background to the music and in the process added greatly to rock 'n' roll's eclecticism, but his tangible achievements, upon which induction for all artists should always be based, are severely lacking. He had no commercial success whatsoever, never scoring a Top 50 album or any Top 100 singles in America, and those are reasonable accomplishments to expect in order to be housed with the immortals. Failing that, a large amount of direct influence would help to offset his lack of popularity, but while Cohen is often referred to as influential in spirit the fact remains that there are no mainstream acts in the four decades since his arrival who have copied his blueprint close enough to warrant Cohen receiving ample credit here either. Being appreciated by a small hardcore group of fans and lauded by predominantly literary minded critics is nice but it does not equate to the type of objective criteria-based achievements that a Hall Of Fame must require of its inductees to be taken seriously. Cohen's election over the four nominated artists this year who failed to get in despite far superior credentials is a sad testimony to the state of affairs with the voting body who apparently ignore tangible accomplishments in favor of personal taste and their own murky perception of what exactly constitutes historical impact. Cohen is certainly worth being remembered in the annals of rock, but not worthy of being inducted as a Hall Of Fame artist based on his rather negligible career achievements.

The Digital Dream Door
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 02.9.08 @ 06:31am


I can't wait any longer!

Posted by Roy on Monday, 02.11.08 @ 13:53pm


I noticed that The Church isn't even listed on the "complete" artist list. I really liked "Under The Milky Way" and "Reptile", but haven't heard anything else that I'm aware of. Anything else worth pursuing???

Posted by Terry on Saturday, 02.16.08 @ 15:24pm


Wasn't Afrika Bambaata biggest hit basically sampled from Kraftwerk? They should be in there before he is.

Posted by Stephen on Saturday, 02.16.08 @ 21:14pm


Has Madonna stated why she won't be performing????????

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 15:37pm


This is starting to look more and more like it will be Leonard Cohen's music performed in the All-Star Jam at the end of the ceremony. Maybe that's what Madonna wants!

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 15:42pm


Well, the inductions are coming soon and we will then be able to start up conversation for next year. I have a question which I put out to everyone. What do you feel are the five biggest ommissions so far in the history of the RnRHoF?

1)Deep Purple
2)Alice Cooper
3)ELP
4)Cheap Trick
5)The Replacements

I would really be interested in knowing how everyone else feels and why. I know Wenner could give a rat's arse what we all think, but as a fan, I have more respect for us than him.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 06:26am


01. Genesis
02. Chicago
03. The Commodores
04. Kool & The Gang
05. Hall & Oates

OR

01. Joan Baez
02. Judy Collins
03. Peter, Paul & Mary
04. The Kingston Trio
05. Laura Nyro

OR

01. Chubby Checker
02. Harry Belafonte
03. The Big Bopper
04. Jan and Dean
05. The Monkees

OR

01. Alice Cooper
02. Rush
03. The Cars
04. The Doobie Brothers
05. Yes

NON-PERFORMERS CATEGORY: BERNIE TAUPIN

Posted by Roy on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 08:10am


I like the Bernie Taupin choice. Without him, does Elton exist? The Monkees are my guilty pleasure. They are bashed for being fabricated, but if you look into the history of Motown, you will see that a lot of that success was due to the genius of Berry Gordy, the songwriting of Smokey Robinson and the musicianship of the Funk Brothers. Yet may people hold the Supremes, the Temps and 4 Tops in as high esteem as they do many of our beloved Rock bands. So why are the Monkees any different than them? Thanks for your opinions Roy.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 08:27am


THIS SUCKS!!! WHY ISN'T THE ROCK HALL GOING TO BE SHOWN ON SPINNER.COM THIS YEAR??

I'm calling my cable company and adding VH1 Classic!

LEONARD COHEN LEONARD COHEN LEONARD COHEN

Call the rock hall and ask them yourself and see what they say:

President Joel Peresman
The Rock And Roll Hall of Fame Foundation
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York, 10104, U.S.A
1-212-484-1754

President Terry Stewart
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum
1100 Rock and Roll Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(East Ninth Street at Lake Erie)
Museum Offices:1.216.781.ROCK

Posted by Roy on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 10:17am


Lets see, I'm gonna go back a ways here;

1) Wanda Jackson
2) Link Wray
3) Wolfman Jack (non-performer...one of the most recognized voices in rock history)
4) Steve Cropper & Duck Dunn (sidemen)
5) Dick Dale

My list is much longer, but chronological seemed a good way to start...

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 10:27am


I'll be taking the top five from my list; namely Kraftwerk, The Stooges, Joy Division, Brian Eno and King Crimson (in that order).

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 12:14pm


Liam...good list!

To me, the list is so long I thought I'd start at the beginning...

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 12:31pm


Lol, sure! I'll repost it here for convenience:

Kraftwerk
Stooges
Joy Division
Brian Eno
King Crimson

Sonic Youth
The Cure
T. Rex
Deep Purple
Nick Drake

Alice Cooper
Afrika Bambaataa
Gang of Four
The Buzzcocks
The Birthday Party

Depeche Mode
The Jam
The Fall
Beastie Boys
Metallica

Roxy Music
Genesis
Hüsker Dü
Wire
Tangerine Dream

The Cars
XTC
Black Flag
MC5
Can

New York Dolls
Devo
The Human League
Sioxsie and The Banshees
Neu!

Pere Ubu
Emerson, Lake & Palmer
Public Image Limited
Yes
Tom Waits

Talk Talk
Love
Captain Beefheart
Modern Lovers
Echo & the Bunnymen

Cocteau Twins
The Specials
Madness
Big Star
The B-52s

Changed it...just a little. Added The Birthday Party. Maybe their a bit too high-up, but so what? Lopped off The Monkees because I can see alot of support welling behind them and they will therefore probably get in soon.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 12:51pm


Liam - 5 or 50; who is counting. I agree with a lot that is on your list, but I have a feeling some of them will not see the light of day with Wenner and Company. If I was to make a top 50, we would probably agree on a good % of them; especially The Jam, XTC, NY Dolls, The Cure, The Stooges and T. Rex. I also hope the "Ska" bands are given a chance to shine one day.

However, you don't have either The Replacements and Cheap Trick on your list; your opinion please on two bands that I think are very important?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:13pm


Thanks Dameon, that was a bit stupid of me! I completely forgot about those two, and would ofcourse have them in my list. I'd throw them both into either Block 3 or 4.

I could also have made an argument for The Damned. Although their discography is a tad sketchy, they still have some brilliant albums ("Machine Gun Etiquette" = supreme pop punk!) and quite a bit of influence. The only problem for The Damned was their regular line-up shifts, and so I imagine the "Damned Damned Damned" would stand the best chance, being the most iconic. Middle few blocks, maybe.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:20pm


EDIT: ..."Damned Damned Damned" line-up...

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:21pm


And yet again I forget New Order....jeez!

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:25pm


Dameon...I want to steal that multi-necked Hamer from Rick Neilsen....lol!!!!

Blue...Brilliant!!!!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:28pm


Liam...how am I supposed to copy all this if you keep forgetting artists....lol

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:29pm


Don't worry, Terry.

I've got a few different arrangements that I've been toying with in my free-free time (free time that isn't occupied by more fun/important stuff!) on a Word Document, and when I'm totally satisfied that I've not forgeotten anyone important and that I've arranged it properly, I'll post it on here and let you all know that I'd made a proper one.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 14:34pm


Liam/Terry - There was the supposed supergroup, "Lords of the New Church" which was Stiv Bators (Dead Boys), Brian James (The Damned), Dave Tregunna (Sham 69) and Nicky Turner (Barracuda)that formed in 1982. I think they disbanded in 89. I was a huge fan from day one with this band. I was checking my vinyl, so I know of at least three studio albums; but I also think they have a "live" album. I think Stiv died a year after the break-up. I thought Bators and James made a great team, mixing pieces and ideas of different genres together. Kind of like an unholy offspring of the NY Dolls and The Clash.

Do you think this band deserves any consideration?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 15:57pm


Were they influential at all?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:10pm


Not particularly; I cannot really say. You would probably know better than me. - I just really liked them and thought they had a bit of a different sound.

I gather that they were not a favorite of yours?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:24pm


Not aware of them to be honest. I'll give them a look some time.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:26pm


I'd say they were a bit influential, since they kind of started playing music that seemed to be a little darker than the norm at the time, and influenced others to do so. I don't know if the term "Goth" is appropriate, but they seemed headed in that direction. People (who don't know) say The Cure were Goth, but they're music wasn't all that dark, they just looked the part a bit. That's about the extent of my knowledge of them...I thought they were a very good group.

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:29pm


OK, I'll definitely check em out now!

I'd probably say that Joy Division, Siouxsie & The Banshees and The Birthday Party were the ones who kicked off 'goth', and The Cure DO have some pretty dark, moody stuff (listen to the bass-line on Fascination Street! soooo good!), although The Cure's much earlier stuff (as great as it was) was more reminiscent of The Buzzcocks or Wire.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:34pm


I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised by what you here with The Lords of the New Church.

I agree Terry, they had a serious dark side to them, but blended it somewhat with elements of Glam. I enjoyed their song structure and how they blended their darker lyrics with music which was not so hard core. I think one of the members of Hanoi Rocks (I forget who) actually sat in with them on a few recordings.

The titles of their albums were:
1)Lords of the New Church
2)Is Nothing Sacred
3)The Method to Our Madness

I am listening to 1st album now. I love playing vinyl.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:48pm


Dameon and Terry, are you both aware of The Birthday Party and/or Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds?

If not, I'd definitely recommend you starting on The Birthday Party's two albums (Junkyard and Prayers On Fire). Those are the sorts of albums that are so dark that you can never, ever get numb to it. The best description I can give would be that they are a cross of sleazy club music and dark post-punk and goth.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 16:55pm


Liam...I'm going to check them both out tonight, plus add The Lords to my library...I had kinda forgot about them, thanks for jarring my memory Dameon!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 18:46pm


A song called "Rather Lovely Thing" by Nick Cave...I remember hearing that in the new "Jesse James" movie! Real mood setting stuff!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 18:56pm


okay, you got me...I listened to a song called "If I Had Known" by the Bad Seeds...good stuff!!!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 19:00pm


Prepare for a shock when you hear The Birthday Party...

Posted by Liam on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 19:08pm


Just listened to a song called "The Friend Catcher"...cool stuff, I really like it!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 02.25.08 @ 19:14pm


Justin Timberlake will be inducting Madonna at the 2008 ceremony...

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 12:20pm


"Besides Timberlake and Madonna, pairings of presenters and honorees (who were originally announced Dec. 13), include presenter Lou Reed and honoree Leonard Cohen; Tom Hanks and the Dave Clark Five (Dave Clark, Lenny Davidson, Rick Huxley, Denis Payton and Mike Smith); Billy Joel and John Mellencamp; and John Fogerty and the Ventures (Bob Bogle, Nokie Edwards, Gerry McGee, Mel Taylor and Don Wilson)."

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20180488,00.html

Additionally, Ben Harper will induct Little Walter, and Jerry Butler will induct Gamble and Huff.

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 12:39pm


Nice, can't wait to see Louie baby induct LC.

Posted by Chalkie on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 13:33pm


Where are you getting all this information about the names of the artists who will be giving the induction speeches?

The Rock Hall has not posted anything yet in the news section on their site.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 13:40pm


Look a few comments above this one. You will see a post by "Future Rock Hall" who I assumed is the Web Adm. for this site.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 15:08pm


Liam, Dameon, Blue, and anyone else who agrees with Blue's recent comment...there's an article in the body of this page you should be interested in reading;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258664,00.html#2

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 17:49pm


Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Announces Presenters
02/26/2008 12:20

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation announces the artists who will induct this year’s honorees at a ceremony on March 10, 2008, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City:

Leonard Cohen will be inducted by Lou Reed

The Dave Clark Five (Dave Clark, Lenny Davidson, Rick Huxley, Denis Payton and Mike Smith) will be inducted by Tom Hanks

Madonna will be inducted by Justin Timberlake

John Mellencamp will be inducted by Billy Joel

Kenny Gamble & Leon Huff will be inducted by Jerry Butler

The Ventures (Bob Bogle, Nokie Edwards, Gerry McGee, Mel Taylor, Don Wilson) will be inducted by John Fogerty

Little Walter will be inducted by Ben Harper

The 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees were chosen by the 600 voters of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. Artists are eligible for inclusion in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25 years after their first recording is released. John Mellencamp and The Ventures are among the artists slated to perform at the event which will air live on March 10th on VH1 Classic and streamed live by Best Buy on BestBuy.com.

In addition to being honored at the ceremony on March 10, 2008, each artist who is inducted is commemorated within the I.M. Pei-designed museum in Cleveland, Ohio. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame displays the signature of each inductee inscribed in glass. In addition, there is an exhibit of artifacts from this year’s inductees, and a multi-media film presentation with highlights from each artist’s career. The exhibit on this year’s inductees will open in March, 2008 and will run for one year.

Posted by Albert on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 17:50pm


I thought this was an interesting statement...

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has garnered criticism for allegedly allowing the nomination process to be controlled by a few individuals,[4] nominating too many artists in too many genres that are not entirely rock,[5] ignoring entire rock genres,[6] and using technicalities to induct groups who may not have been among the top vote getters.[7] The Sex Pistols, who were inducted in 2006, refused to attend the ceremony, calling the museum a "piss stain

I guess even with all the scrutiny, it never seems to change anything. Just goes to show how big some people's egos are...

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 18:32pm


This is hillarious!! BESTBUY.COM will be streaming the 2008 ROCK HALL. It's not mentioned yet anywhere on their site! Do you know when they will start to mention it? Will the show be directly on BESTBUY.COM, the main page??

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 19:35pm


Do you have to have an online account or screen name with BESTBUY in order to watch the show on their site? In other words, do we have to log in?? Do we have to pay??

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 19:56pm


Roy...from everything I've heard they're just going to do some sort of simulcast. Didn't hear anything about it costing extra. Have you checked "VH-1 Classic"s website? Seems like they might, too. It seems like they have in the past but not sure.

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 20:32pm


I'm guessing this is a marketing tactic. I'm imagining all the BEST BUY stores in North America showing the 2008 Rock Hall ceremony on all the TV screens they have on display for sale. The stores will all be flooded with people watching the show, and buying products. BEST BUY closes at 10PM. LOL

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 21:27pm


Hey, Dameom...I put all three Lords albums into my Rhapsody library..really good to hear it again!!

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 08:41am


Justin "ex Mickey Mouse Club and NSYNC" Timberlake was really the best they could summon to present supposed icon and chameleon Madonna with her honor? What happened to the hope of David Bowie showing up?

And while we're at it - I have a kitchy soft spot for Billy Joel, but how disappointed does Mellencamp have to be that this is who he gets? Wouldn't all of the historical canards about him being a Springsteen wannabe have logically made Bruce the poetic and good humored natural choice? Even Tom Petty or Willie Nelson or Neil Young would have been appropriate.

These things combined with Madonna's opting to not perform seems to indicatethe Hall is lacking for some needed prestige and weight.

Posted by Blue on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 09:34am


I have to agree with you on every point. The HoF loses more prestige every year and seems to be entering into the "Who Cares" world of music.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 14:21pm


12 MORE DAYS!!

Leonard Cohen! Leonard Cohen! Leonard Cohen!

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 15:41pm


The only rumor I've heard besides the ones mentioned is that Springsteen might step in for Mike Smith of the DC5 and do his vocals...supposedly discussed it at a show at the same place in London where Zeppelin did their show (like I said, just a rumor). That might pump some life into the "festivities". Like I mentioned before, its a shame...Mike Smith would love to perform, but can't...

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 18:45pm


I hear Tom Hanks Is doing it for the Dave Clark 5...I wonder what prompted that? Tom Hanks was pretty young in their heyday.

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 19:18pm


I guess The Dave Clark Five don't have any fans in the music business!

Remember when The Dells were inducted by Robert Townsend?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 19:22pm


Roy...It does seem like the music industry has a pretty short memory anymore...they haven't learned the old saying "how can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been?.

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 19:25pm


After some of the "follies" I've read about in the induction process, it seems like one person...Jann Wenner...has ultimate say on who gets inducted. I'm sure he had NO problem inducting himself!

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 19:29pm


Putting "YES" into the Roll Hall of Fame is way over due.

Posted by Campbell on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 20:33pm


Springsteen has his own show that night on Long Island. It's unlikely he could be in both places simultaneously.

Posted by Albert on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 20:52pm


Might be rough...lol!!! Well, thats rumors for ya!! Sounds like its gonna be a bit of a dull evening...

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 21:03pm


"I hear Tom Hanks Is doing it for the Dave Clark 5...I wonder what prompted that?"

Maybe the 1996 movie that Hanks wrote and directed, "That Thing You Do!" is the thematic link? The One-ders were sort of DC5 like.

Posted by Blue on Wednesday, 02.27.08 @ 23:03pm


Blue...good point. That movie was even based on about the same time.

Posted by Terry on Thursday, 02.28.08 @ 06:33am


Mike Smith, lead singer of the Dave Clark Five, passed away today.

http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7941338

DAVE CLARK FIVE SINGER-SONGWRITER MIKE SMITH, R.I.P.

Mike Smith, the lead singer and keyboard player of The Dave Clark Five, one of the premier bands to emerge during the 1960's "British Invasion", died today from pneumonia at Stoke Mandeville Hospital outside of London. His devoted wife, Arlene, who is known as Charlie, was by his side. Smith was 64 years old.

Smith, who was due to be inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame with his band mates on Monday, March 10th, was admitted to the hospital's Intensive Care Unit yesterday morning with a chest infection, a complication from a spinal cord injury he sustained in September, 2003 that left him a tetraplegic (paralyzed below the ribcage with limited use of his upper body). Smith had been in the hospital since the accident, and was just released in December 2007 when he moved into a specially-prepared home near the hospital with his wife.

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Thursday, 02.28.08 @ 14:40pm


FINALLY, THE 2008 ROCK HALL TV COMMERCIAL

CHECK IT OUT!!!

http://www.spike.com/video/2947416?cmpnid=716&pt=sr&refsite=7103

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 02.28.08 @ 21:17pm


Roy...I'd be surprised if VH-1 Classic isn't showing it on their website...it seems like they have in the past, just not sure if it's live or not. It's a drag you don't have VH-1 classic, not a bad channel...

Posted by Terry on Thursday, 02.28.08 @ 21:28pm


The show will be live!

I'm getting VH1 Classic on MARCH 5th.

I'm going to watch it on BESTBUY.COM TOO! At the same time

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 02.28.08 @ 21:41pm


Cool...sounds like you're set, then. I guess the events of today kind of put a different spin on this year's ceremonies...

Posted by Terry on Thursday, 02.28.08 @ 21:57pm


Will we know the order of inductions before the night of the ceremony, and which indutee's music will be played in the all-star jam at the end?

Posted by Roy on Friday, 02.29.08 @ 09:53am


The 2008 Rock Hall page is now up on bestbuy.com

http://www.bestbuy.com/halloffame

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 03.2.08 @ 07:54am


Future Rock Hall broke the story that Madonna would not be performing at the Induction Ceremony, and now we learn that perpetual Rock Hall snubs, Iggy & the Stooges will be the ones to play some Madonna songs.

Inductees John Mellencamp and The Ventures will perform themselves.

Damien Rice will perform for Leonard Cohen.

James Cotton will perform for Little Walter.

Patti LaBelle for Gamble & Huff.

Nothing is mentioned at this time about the Dave Clark Five.

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/03/03/iggy-the-stooges-to-perform-for-madonna-at-rock-hall-ceremony/

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Monday, 03.3.08 @ 13:09pm


HOLY CRAP!! MAJOR CHANGES!!

The 2008 Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame UPDATE!! Major Last Minute Changes!

Little Walter being inducted by Ben Harper; performance by James Cotton

The Ventures being inducted by John Fogerty; performance by The Ventures

The Dave Clark Five being inducted by Tom Hanks; performance by ??????

Gamble & Huff being inducted by Jerry Butler; performance by Patti LaBelle

Leonard Cohen being inducted by Lou Reed; performance by Damien Rice

John Mellencamp being inducted by Billy Joel; performance by John Mellencamp

Madonna being inducted by Justin Timberlake; performance by Iggy Pop and The Stooges (THEY MUST BE PISSED!)


I guess this is a wake up call to the Rock Hall!!



Posted by Roy on Monday, 03.3.08 @ 20:28pm


What about The Dave Clark Five?

Will the remaining members perform?

If not, who will perform for them?

Posted by Roy on Monday, 03.3.08 @ 20:32pm


Madonna being inducted by Justin Timberlake; performance by Iggy Pop and The Stooges (THEY MUST BE PISSED!)

Are you kidding? Now I will have ro watch this bore of a show.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 03.3.08 @ 22:03pm


That should be worth the price of admission!!!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 03.3.08 @ 22:39pm


Roy, what are you going to do with yourself after this is over? You're going to go into Leonard Cohen withdrawal.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 03.4.08 @ 08:21am


About the 2008 Inductees, mel wrote:
Roy, what are you going to do with yourself after this is over? You're going to go into Leonard Cohen withdrawal.
Tuesday, 03.4.08 @ 08:21am
Leave your own comment about the 2008 Inductees here.



I'm going to sit and wait for Bernie Taupin, Chicago, and Weird Al Yankovic to get inducted!!

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 03.4.08 @ 13:44pm


Wtf? Weird Al? You'll be waiting a long time.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 03.4.08 @ 15:04pm


Rolling Stone has learned that Joan Jett will be performing for the Dave Clark Five at Monday's Induction Ceremony.
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/03/05/rock-hall-news-joan-jett-performing-for-dave-clark-five-tribute/

Only two of the five artists being inducted on Monday will be performing at the ceremony (Mellencamp and The Ventures).

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Wednesday, 03.5.08 @ 12:32pm


My nomination list for next year:

1. Kraftwerk
2. King Crimson
3. Joy Division
4. Roxy Music *
5. Metallica
6. The Smiths
7. Gang of Four **
8. The Stooges **
9. Sonic Youth
10. The Cure

(and if 15 is possible...)

11. New Order
12. Nick Drake
13. Genesis
14. The Buzzcocks
15. Cocteau Twins

* being both glam AND prog, you're getting two prog acts in at once without it being painfully obvious
** because RHCP is guaranteed induction next year

Any more than 15 nominations would be pushing it, IMO. I decided to scrap the whole splitting each ballot into genres thing, because one genre, such as punk, would get prioritised over another, such as shoe-gaze, by the voters.

The nominating commitee should be changed to writers with Pitchfork Media.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 03.8.08 @ 10:22am


"The problem is, you've got a bunch of people who know a lot about music on the (nominating) committee, but then you have a lot of people doing the voting who don't."-Dave Marsh

Let me guess...he thinks he's one of the people does know a lot!

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 03.9.08 @ 08:41am


For live updates during the Induction Ceremony tonight, keep refreshing http://www.futurerocklegends.com/blog.php

You can stream the ceremony from bestbuy.com/halloffame

Posted by Future Rock Legends on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 18:11pm


If someone doesn't jump on stage right now and punch Timberlake in the face, I am going to be very upset.

The HoF can truly be called the Hall of Shame now. I think I even heard Wenner give himself a plug in his opening remarks. He is waiting for the day when he can nominate himself.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 20:04pm


Too late, Dameon...he already inducted himself, I think in 2004. Kind of a lame show, huh???

Posted by Terry on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 20:12pm


Lame is not the word. What was Timberlake doing? Even worse, Madonna's speech was horrible. As for the Stooges, if this was Madonna's idea of getting the Hall to start acknowledging them, I applaud her. But that performance didn't do it for me.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 20:56pm


Hey, Dameon...I thought the Dave Clark 5 segment was the best part of the telecast by far. Tom Hanks was, well, Tom Hanks!! The speeches seemed very heartfelt, and the performances of both songs were very good. Nice to see other hall of famers paying homage.

Posted by Terry on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 22:05pm


I like some of Madonna's songs but rock and roll?? wtf this takes all the meaning and honour out of it for me. I won't ever even bother to go to the museum now. Why can't pop artists have there own bloody hall of fame. Rap , pop, country etc..are all good genre's of music but they are not rock and roll! If anyone with a microphone can get in then what's so special about it?

Posted by Juju on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 12:38pm


Agreed.

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 12:47pm


After this year I think they should call a one-year moratorium on trying to expand the mission of the hall, and give us just one all rock and roll, all famous class. They could induct KISS, Jethro Tull, The Stooges, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, Metallica and Motörhead and then go back to filling the hall with all the pop, country, blues, folk, jazz and rap artists they want.

Posted by Wayne on Saturday, 03.15.08 @ 03:15am


Hello ~ I am a Founding Member of the RRHOF and first time poster. Regarding the obvious omission of certain artists and groups, we cannot neglect the effects of 'politics' and who you know. Regarding why certain groups or artists are inducted, looking at the foundation of ROCK AND ROLL will help. Genres included are:

Gospel
Country
Blues
Jazz
Folk
R & B
Traditional Pop

As others have mentioned, where does RAP fit into this? I am not sure. On the other hand, DISCO need not be the bast--d child of ROCK AND ROLL music. I believe Donna Summer belongs there along with Madonna. I hope to return with my list. This is such an interesting forum!


Posted by Karen on Saturday, 03.15.08 @ 07:57am


Who I would like to see inducted into the RRHOF:

Neil Diamond (Paul Schaefer says Diamond is a rock legend and I believe it.)
Donna Summer
Moody Blues
Genesis (Generally, the Rock Hall acknowledges groups whose members individually have success.)
Hall & Oates
The Commodores

Hmmmm...either this is a closed website, or strangers are not welcomed here.
Heart

Posted by Karen on Tuesday, 03.18.08 @ 02:40am


While watching the voting and seeing the list of artists that people deem "worthy", I came up with a great idea...lets just put EVERYBODY in the HoF and have a ceremony every year to see who gets KICKED OUT!!! Makes as much sense as some of the artists who get "yes" votes!

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 03.18.08 @ 21:09pm


Shut up Terry. I am so tired of this stupid line of thought. Were you the one who said he thinks only 30-40 artists are actually worthy?

Posted by Blue on Tuesday, 03.18.08 @ 22:37pm


That was me...don't remember asking or caring what you think, and I'm entirely the WRONG person to be telling to "shut up". Of course, people can get pretty brave when they're nameless and faceless! Instead of "blue" you should call yourself "yellow"! I give my opinion, and certainly don't tell anyone else how to think!! I suggest when it comes to me you keep your opinions to yourself!!


As far as stupidity goes, it would be best for you to keep your mouth shut and let people just think you're stupid!!

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 03.18.08 @ 23:15pm


I don't remember giving a shit whether you think this forum is your own mastubatory pulpit or you understand that what you say might elicit a response you may or may not care to engage. Why so delicate, flower? Do you enjoy gazing into your little makeup mirror and talking to yourself without challenge at home too?

I simply took issue with your stupid stance that the HoF is some kind of a sacred shrine of Mystical Icons, of which your caliber of genius is qualified to judge. You're the one who went off and is talking "tough" (laughable idea via the keyboard, btw). Get over yourself, Brutus.

Posted by Blue on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 09:10am


Terry, I think our exchange got oddly out of hand at Mach 5. I've read your posts for a while and actually find you agreeable. Sorry I told you to shut up; shoulda delivered my opinion without that.
I do think the paradigm of "exclusivity" that you and William tilt towards is ultimately a dead end that would give a HoF a prognosis of death.

It doesn't work. Invites indifference and apathy in the end.
Think educational museum of time instead of Hall of People We Say are Giants.

Posted by Blue on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 09:54am


"Do you enjoy gazing into your little makeup mirror and talking to yourself without challenge at home too?"

I do, but you'd be shocked at how many arguments erupt.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 12:37pm


"I do think the paradigm of 'exclusivity' that you and William tilt towards is ultimately a dead end that would give a HoF a prognosis of death.

It doesn't work. Invites indifference and apathy in the end.
Think educational museum of time instead of Hall of People We Say are Giants."-Blue

If you want that, then remove induction altogether. Remove the showy exhibitions, and just fill the walls with biographies on every band out there.

I just don't get how going by the Hall's own methods of inducting only a few bands per year, trying to ensure that those bands are actually important to musical history is "excluding" anyone who deserves it. If all bands are equally deserving, have a lottery. If not, then explain what makes one band more deserving than another, then realize that you're doing exactly what we're doing and somehow finding the nerve to criticize us for it.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 14:26pm


"If you want that, then remove induction altogether. Remove the showy exhibitions, and just fill the walls with biographies on every band out there." - W

A bit of ceremony and hype can make "induction" fun. But if you suggest not buying into all that "a great honor to be amongst the important crowd" crap, then yea... that's the idea.

"If not, then explain what makes one band more deserving than another.." -W

See, there's the whole flaw. Shouldn't be doing it. Musicians do not compete with one another like baseball players; they don't acheive anything - just create and see if it is enjoyed. While I, like you, can judge whether a band is shit oBluer genius or somewhere in between, it's still a judgment and not a ststictis or a won/loss record. "Better than", in this music HoF area, is not only stupid and hopeless, but arrogant and divisive if you don't have a looser filter than you prefer.

You might be satisfied with your version of a nice Hall, but it would not interest enough people to make it viable; not in the way this one was intended to be anyway.

Posted by Blue on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 15:01pm


A Hall Of Fame with only Leonard Cohens in it would be like a football Hall Of Fame with nobody that the masses ever heard of. It would flop faster than Pam Anderson's last marriage. Imagine a dad with his kids going in and asking, "Excuse me, but where can I find the Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana exhibits?" Then the curator replies, "Sorry, we don't have Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana in this museum. They didn't design the football or invent the goalposts. Those are the only type of folks we have here." That would be one mad dad...magnify that by 1000s of pissed off disappointed people who realize they traveled all the way for next to nothing and what do you get....

A hell of a lot of road rage on I-90 headed outta Cleveland!!!!!!

Posted by Arrow Man on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 23:20pm


There is a point where the comparison between music and sports breaks down, and that's definitely past that point. Sports achievements are based on purely objective criteria, statistics which can be measured. Measuring influence and innovation in music isn't impossible, but it's not as easy as writing down a number.

Posted by William on Thursday, 03.20.08 @ 00:28am


"There is a point where the comparison between music and sports breaks down, and that's definitely past that point." -W

So why try to conceive an institution that "validates" music artists with a similar concept - one based on scales.... your scales, or Wenner's scales? It's almost impossible to maintain the gatekeeper mentality - velvet ropes and all that hooey - without quickly becoming divisive and eliciting anger. The system doesn't fit. Arrowman makes a great point - a fine point indeed. Who is this fukking Hall for?

The answer lies in not asking "Why should we include this artist/band?", but in "Why not?"
I know this runs anathema to your tastes William, but it is obvious that after you induct all the no-brainers (Beatles, Stones, Zeppelein..) the debates become relative to your personal philosophies.

You want a Hall full of just Sonic Youths and Flaming Lips and Joy Divisions and Arcade Fires? They all belong, but you have to have the Doobie Brothers and Steve Miller Bands and Alice Coopers and KISS's, and all the rest of the so-called "leftover" acts to make it a healthy and interesting museum to travel to and creation to pay attention to.

The answer is more acts.... not less.


"Measuring influence and innovation in music isn't impossible, but it's not as easy as writing down a number." -W

Stop with that crap. You cannot measure those two things with any degree of accuracy that will make it anything more than a vague guess. Some examples are just common sense. Measuring this innovation/influence thing side by side with two acts is folly - presumptuous antics. You can make a case for or against almost any artist, and it will still be stupid and so inexact as to be worthless. Like trying to say you have an instrument than can tell us the level of "fun" in the air; too subjective... too much so.
Stop falling back on that.

Posted by Blue on Thursday, 03.20.08 @ 10:17am


"You want a Hall full of just Sonic Youths and Flaming Lips and Joy Divisions and Arcade Fires? They all belong, but you have to have the Doobie Brothers and Steve Miller Bands and Alice Coopers and KISS's, and all the rest of the so-called "leftover" acts to make it a healthy and interesting museum to travel to and creation to pay attention to."

Yeah, so I think that the ballot needs to be split in two parts. There should be a sort of "public ballot", which I would imagine should be given to music magazines and their readers(any other ideas?) to help make sure the more-mainstreamed-less-important acts get in, and an other ballot for music writers etc. (ones who actually have a fair idea of what they're talking about, rather than the completely out-of-touch bunch in there now) to ensure the likes of Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, The Stooges all get their due.

That way, not only will Our Imaginary Hall pull in lots of visitors, but it can also act as a way of informing those visitors who were less informed in the first place. Maybe a KISS fan could be converted into a Gang of Four fan. Maybe a Guns N' Roses fan will like what they hear in XTC. Maybe a big Beatles fan will like what enjoy Cocteau Twins.

Who knows?

This is why I wouldn't like to see the HoF turn into a totally sterile n' safe by only inducting the Absolutes (Kraftwerk, Eno, Captain Beefheart etc); it'll almost certainly turn into a totally elitist society, honestly no better than its current status.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 03.20.08 @ 13:31pm


Liam, you and I would be in agreement on how to run a Rock Hall 95% of the time were we a part of its Legion of Doom. I concur heartily with your thoughts there, mate.

Posted by Blue on Thursday, 03.20.08 @ 16:18pm


Im still waiting for Cheap Trick to get in....they have been together and still recording than most of the bands that have gotten in.....Im totally disgusted with the voting committee.....Ive seen the future nominees..are you all on crack??? The Smashing Pumpkins?? who the hell do you think influenced them??CHEAP TRICK...and they will get in before them?? smoke another one guys.......maybe the fans should pick

Posted by TrkZep66 on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 00:45am


WHY IS JOHNNY MASTERO NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME?

Posted by JOHN ROSSI on Wednesday, 04.9.08 @ 21:27pm



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