Lawrence Welk

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1953 (The 1954 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?

Lawrence Welk @ Wikipedia

Lawrence Welk Videos

Will Lawrence Welk be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

13 comments so far (post your own)

Are you kidding me? There's actually a page for Lawrence Welk, the king of saccharine, watered-down music for the Geritol generation? This guy isn't worthy of wearing Glenn Miller's socks.

Lawrence Welk was as bland as bland got. If you need evidence, look at the clip on YouTube of Elaine Balden and Bobby Burgess (members of Welk's musical menagerie of misfits) murdering Land of a Thousand Dances. It's enough to make Wilson Pickett (I know, he didn't write the song, but he made the best version bar none) roll in his grave.

The covers of Beatles tunes were just as equally putrid, and I hate the Beatles!

As far as blandness and unoriginality are concerned, only Mitch Miller and the Boston Pops come close to rivaling Lawrence Welk.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 11:58am


Gotta say Zach, it takes cojones to say you hate the Beatles around here. I admire you for admitting what many people wouldn't dare for fear of being ostracized.

Also, I'm surprised by the fact you are astonished to find a page for Lawrence Welk on here. This site has a page for everyone from John Travolta to KeSha (disgusting, I know)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 12:12pm


My intense dislike of the Beatles is no secret, Tahvo. I'm sure you recall our conversation over on the Chuck Berry page in which I detailed my reasons for disliking The Beatles.

I feel that many members of my generation like the Beatles simply because they've been told time and again that they're the greatest band that ever set foot on God's green Earth. As you said, too many people are afraid of openly criticizing the Beatles because of the backlash they'd receive. Well, I'm not one of them. I listen to the music I like, and no one is going to convince or force me into liking the Beatles. Last time I checked, there's no law that forbids people like me from disagreeing with those who slavishly follow sacred cows.

You think it took cajones for me to admit that I hate the Beatles? I put Come Together first on a list of the five worst songs I've ever heard. In fact, I'll share it with you so you can read my take:

Come Together - The Beatles: Yeah, I'm putting a song by the Yeastles (scientific studies have shown that women get yeast infections from listening to the Beatles' music, hence the nickname I've given them) at number one and here's why. If any one song summarizes just how pathetic their later drug-induced period was, it's this song. In talking to hardcore Yeastles fans, I've found that no one can come to a consensus on what this song means (it'd be easier trying to translate Klingon into English). Theories range from the absurd ("It's a song about coming together" Good work, Sherlock. Did you figure that one out by looking at the title?) to the overblown ("It's about consumerism and corporate greed." So mentioning Coca-Cola once in a passing manner constitutes bashing consumerism?). The truth is that this coma-inducing earache of a song was written by Wong Lenin and Polio McDonald as a campaign song for Timothy Leary's run for California governor. Needless to say, it went over like a fart in a church. The lyrics are so incoherent it's not even worth trying to analyze Cum Together for any deep, philosophical meanings. If you find such witty lines as "He got toe jam football" or "He got feet down below his knees" intellectually stimulating, you need to lay off the acid.

The reason I'm surprised that Lawrence Welk got a page on Future Rock Legends is because there's nothing about his music that can be considered an influence on rock 'n' roll, even if one applies the loosest definition of rock 'n' roll. I wish there were pages for Glenn Miller, Count Basie, Artie Shaw, and some of the other giants of big band on FRL. To deny their influence on shaping of rock 'n' roll is to ignore a major part of music history. You can hear a big band influence in everyone from Bill Haley & His Comets to the Brian Setzer Orchestra. I'll take the big band sound over the pseudo-intellectual ravings of Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, and all these other free form jizz noise-makers that critics cream themselves over.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 13:41pm


You're correct, Zach, you did mention the Beatles on the Chuck Berry page, I totally forgot. Anyway, I'm going to agree with you on "Come Together," not my cup of tea, just too dull really, sort of like "Get Back" which I don't care for either.

For me at least, the Beatles are not the "Greatest Band of All Time," however, I do respect them if anything for the amount of influence they've had and I'd be lying if I said I didn't own any of their records. Not even really sure if I consider myself a big fan anymore, a few years ago I considered myself a big Beatles and Zeppelin fan as access to these big namers' music was easy to come by for a teenager. Not sure what happened but I never really listen to either band anymore and I do still routinely listen to Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones and Queen who I was also a big fan of around the same time.

Since you've been vocal about your distaste for folk music (or at least protest songs), I think you would enjoy the Bob Dylan thread there's some comments on there that I suspect would be to your liking. The main problem with Bob Dylan and the Beatles is as you already touched on, they are both viewed as critically untouchable and "objective legends" if you will; something that has not even been ingrained by populist snobbery, but rather by critical opinion. Even though I respect why some may consider the Beatles to be the greatest musical artists of all time, I think it'd very depressing to imagine that no other artist in the future can surpass the Beatles. Furthermore, I'm not convinced even after half a century that the Beatles should be so highly regarded. If in 300 years people view the Beatles as people nowadays view Beethoven and Mozart, ok, I can accept it then.

I enjoyed your take on Miles Davis and (especially) Thelonious Monk, the latter of which was a total up-himself prick. He completely hated and rock and roll, he considered it a temporary phenomenon and didn't consider its artists real musicians. He also said rock and roll gave his wife a stomach ache (no pun intended), which is interesting considering I have a friend who once told me that he cannot listen to Monk's "music" as it gives him a headache.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 14:49pm


only avant jazz I ever liked was A Love Supreme.

also dylan himself didn't like the whole "voice of a generation" tag. that's why he recorded a whole lot of dreck in the early 70's so people would stop paying attention to him.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 15:59pm


I'd be lying if I said the Beatles didn't make at least a few good contributions to music. As a fan of T. Rex, I give Ringo Starr credit for helping Marc Bolan. I'm also glad that Paul McCartney has played an instrumental role in keeping Buddy Holly's musical legacy alive, whether it be covering his songs or producing The Real Buddy Holly Story (I also liked the movie with Gary Busey, but it omitted many important facts pertinent to the Holly legend). Even John Lennon, whom I've considered a false prophet for his oversimplified version of an ideal world and hypocrisy, hit the nail square on the head when he declared, "If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." I'll even admit to enjoying some Ringo Starr's solo material, Back Off Bugaloo being my favorite. In fact, out of the Beatles, the one member whose music I like is Ringo Starr. But that's as far as I'll go with the Beatles. I can't stomach Paul McCartney's overproduced, saccharine songs, ditto with John Lennon's preachy, unrealistic peace brigade. George Harrison was bland overall, at times trying to emulate John Lennon (witness the Bangladesh concert) but sometimes following the Paul McCartney route.

I'm glad you mentioned Queen, as they are one of my all time favorite bands. Queen was a complete band with each member playing an equally significant role. In Brian May and John Deacon, you had two gifted guitarists who could rip it up together on stage without one doming the other. In Roger Taylor, you had a drummer who could keep up a steady pace and go on without losing a beat. And then there's Freddie Mercury, without question (YMMV) the single greatest vocalist rock 'n' roll has ever heard. He put so much passion and emotion into his words and always gave nothing less than 100%. Queen was 1,000 times the band that the Beatles ever were. Also, Queen (the original lineup, not the inferior new one with Paul Rodgers) stuck together for 20 straight years, 1971-1991, all without any in-fighting or egos. Compare that to the Beatles, a band that was destroyed by petty egos (It was always the John and Paul show, with George and Ringo taking back seats), Yoko Ono's influence over John Lennon, and general in-fighting. The Beatles never produced a song that packed so many emotions or sounds as Bohemian Rhapsody.

Thelonious Monk's attitude towards rock 'n' roll was typical of those of his generation. I can't tolerate Monk's music because, like most free jazz, it is so self-conscious and reeks of pretentiousness. It's too dry and doesn't have a rhythm, something that big band had in its favor.

As always, it's a pleasure to chat with you, Tahvo.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 16:45pm


I think you can cut john a bit of slack on unrealistic, everyone was like that at the time apart from the likes of zappa.

also what do you think of their work upto Revolver?

Posted by GFW on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 16:56pm


I think you can cut john a bit of slack on unrealistic, everyone was like that at the time apart from the likes of zappa.

also what do you think of their work upto Revolver?

Posted by GFW on Monday, 02.13.12 @ 16:56pm

You're absolutely correct, GFW. I hope I didn't sound like I was accusing John Lennon of being the only one to perpetuate the "peace and love" myth. One of my hated songs, Get Together, was equally guilty of this. The lyrics are childishly simple. A song isn't going to get people all over the world to put aside their wars and violence and live in harmony. You've got to be a lot more persuasive than that to really get people to do something.

As for the Beatles' pre-Revolver material, I don't think very highly of it either. I can tolerate I Saw Her Standing There, which is a half-decent attempt at doing a Buddy Holly and the Crickets-type song. Twist and Shout is an okay cover, even though it can't top the Isley Brothers' original for sheer party music. Besides those two songs, I can't think of any other Beatles songs at the moment that I would admit to liking a wee bit.

I love how critics and fans have made the blanket statement that the Beatles saved rock 'n' roll. There's two things wrong with this statement:

1) There were more than enough true rockers in the early 1960s to keep rock 'n' roll alive. Freddy Cannon, Ray Charles, Roy Orbison, Chubby Checker, and others were around to provide an alternative to the saccharine teen pop of Fabian, Bobby Vinton, Frankie Avalon, and others.

2) Much of the Beatles' early material is more pop than rockabilly, blues, or rhythm & blues. How exactly is She Loves You any more hard rockin' than Roses Are Red?

I've pretty much given up on ever listening to the Beatles again. I'm having too much fun discovering older artists who haven't been killed by overexposure and ignorant fans. My iPod reflects the depth of my musical tastes. On any given day, I'll listen to Glenn Miller, Queen, The Waitresses, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Buddy Holly and the Crickets, Foreigner, Roxy Music, David Bowie, Scandal, and Kenny G (just to name some).

Posted by Zach on Monday, 02.27.12 @ 21:09pm


I am almost 80 years old and I cannot STAND listening to Lawrence Welk.I leave the room when my husband (93) has it on. YUCK!!!

Posted by Joan B on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 19:11pm


Aww...come on, Joan! ~You're not 'into-to' his "Tiny Bubbles"...?

Posted by Larry Johnson on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 19:13pm


haha, Lawrence Welk? a rocker? andah 1 andah 2 andah haha haha

Posted by Worm on Monday, 08.18.14 @ 13:35pm


I know Tahvo no longer posts here, but he would be disappointed to know that I've retracted my stance on Thelonious Monk. I've given Monk more of a chance recently and have now grown to admire his complexity as a pianist and composer. Since the piano is my favorite instrument, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that I eventually came around to liking Monk. I've currently got Mulligan Meets Monk on my library queue.

Still can't stand The Beatles, political music, Lawrence Welk, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, or folk music. :-)

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 09.30.14 @ 17:46pm


Yes, you don't need to be a rocker to influence rock music.

Before there was MTV, there was variety shows and Lawrence is a pioneer of these kind of shows along side Ed Sullivan and Sid Caesar, variety shows helped jump started the careers of some of the biggest names in music.

He's one of biggest names in the Big Band, this genre helped popularize basic concepts of rock, like improvisation, booming sound, complex arrangements and instrument solos, the impact of Big band on rock is massive and the legends of this genre (like Lawrence )need to be added to the hall.

Posted by Timothy on Wednesday, 07.5.17 @ 18:24pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.