? & the Mysterians

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1991 (The 1992 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
96 Tears (1966)

? & the Mysterians @ Wikipedia

? & the Mysterians Videos

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

Comments

87 comments so far (post your own)

Sorry....One HUGE hit record can't get you inducted. Great song though.

Posted by JasonP on Thursday, 03.13.08 @ 21:32pm


"The band's frontman and primary songwriter was Question Mark. Though the singer has never confirmed it, Library of Congress copyright registrations indicate that his birth name is Rudy Martinez. His eccentric behavior helped to briefly establish the group in the national consciousness. He claimed (and still claims) to be a Martian who lived with dinosaurs in a past life, and he never appears in public without sunglasses. He has also claimed that voices told him he would still be performing "96 Tears" in the year 10,000."-Wikipedia

WHOA!!!!!!!!!! Just goes to show you how much mileage you can get out of one song. That lead singer...don't think all his dogs are barkin', twelve short of a dozen, etc....!!!! Maybe he sang it to the dinosaurs...there goes the theory that an asteroid wiped them out!!!

Posted by Terry on Monday, 03.17.08 @ 21:39pm


Rudy Martinez...a total weirdo (he does, in fact, think he's from another planet!!!)!!! He has definitely milked that one hit for all it's worth though...and then some!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 04.23.09 @ 20:10pm


seriously, is Rudy Martinez or Question Mark dead?

Posted by akeem on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 17:33pm


seriously, is Rudy Martinez or Question Mark dead?

Posted by akeem on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 17:33pm


I haven't heard anything about him being dead, akeem...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 17:50pm


Question Mark, that guy was something else!! I wonder what he's doing nowadays

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 06.19.10 @ 03:00am


If he is dead then his corpse just performed here in Chicago last night.

Posted by Eddie on Saturday, 07.24.10 @ 10:52am


It takes more than one hit to get you in.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 10.25.10 @ 11:53am


RIP Eddie Serato

Posted by GFW on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 05:24am


? is alive he was on the my music on the pbs channel last sat nite Dec 3rd 2011 they sang 96 tears he is better than some of the others singers

Posted by Margaret Wood on Friday, 12.9.11 @ 20:00pm


Personally I love his music but I think hes too egotistical and I think hes gay but hes about 66 yrs old and still rockin allthough I dont understand the young ladies going crazy over him at his age , you cant even tell what he looks like with the hat, hair and glasses

Posted by RSF on Thursday, 12.22.11 @ 20:39pm


wonder if thats a wig and hes bald, dont matter either way hes old

Posted by Jay on Thursday, 12.22.11 @ 20:56pm


"Personally I love his music but I think hes too egotistical and I think hes gay"

WTF? Did you even think about what you were typing before you blurted that out?

"I dont understand the young ladies going crazy over him at his age"

And why do you care?

"wonder if thats a wig and hes bald, dont matter either way hes old"

Again, who cares. Leave the poor guy alone already, just because he's a Martian doesn't mean you need to pick on him. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 06:29am


I knew exactly what I was saying when I said I think Q is way way to egotistical and gay, have you even seen his video in his cute little tied off orange shirt, what man dresses like that, dont get me wrong I like to hear him sing but all the rest .......really...oh and Jay at 66 yrs old he probably is bald

Posted by RSF on Friday, 12.23.11 @ 14:27pm


I don't know very many Latinos that are bald (if you think about it). I suppose when he crawled thru the Fire to save his dogs that was not a wig that was burned. Maybe the ladies like him because of his obvious passion for his music or the energy that comes from his performance ( at his age)! Or maybe they just like the way he moves in those skin tight pants!!

Posted by Dmoatsify on Sunday, 12.25.11 @ 17:45pm


RSF obviously youre not gay, I came out when I was 16, allmost 20 yrs ago, ? is definately gay and I would go so far to say that he very well could be a drag queen ,BUT that should NOT take away from the great talent that this man has , he is a genius in his own way , so really it should not make any difference one way or another , and for 66 yrs old hes still hot...hell I would do him

Posted by Ron on Monday, 12.26.11 @ 21:22pm


OMG what is wrong with some of you people, ? out performs any one act I have ever seen, at 66 yrs old his energy is that of a 20 yr old, he still sounds great and is incredibly sexy and I dont believe for a minute that hes gay, and Ron I think youre just jealous cause you cant have him, and RSF if you still looked that good at 66 yrs old you would probably be on a bit of an ego trip too

Posted by Jan on Tuesday, 12.27.11 @ 21:35pm


1. Does it matter if he's gay? They inducted Queen as well as the ultimate gay's best friend, Madonna. This is a moot, bs point.

2. Does it matter if he has a big ego? They inducted Little Richard, Paul McCartney, Mike Love, Frankie Valli, Mick Jagger, Prince, etc. In fact, having something of an ego may even be a little bit necessary in the realm of rock superstardom. It helps you handle fame.

3. Does the work of the band really merit induction? The fact that he's still touring to this day means absolutely nothing. It really does. They weren't even the first proto-garage rock band, as the Kingsmen had them beat in that regard, and they may not even have been the first.

No, they don't deserve it.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 12.28.11 @ 02:52am


Many years ago, a bunch of us kids would cram into a vehicle and go to Bay City, MI ... to watch the Battle of the Bands at the Roll-air Rink... an outside roller skating place. The amatuer bands would rock out and try to out-perfomr the next .... Bob Seeger and a few others got their start at just such performances. True, "Q" and the guys only had one big hit, but that song is still played and recognized as one of the first garage rock bands to succeed. What many people don't realize is the prejudice and bias war that they had to fight in order to get any recognition! Not to mention how their funds were cut short by an unscrupulous agent who to this day, has prevented them from receiving a good deal of royalties!!! Yet, they "Rock On" because they enjoy entertaining and making people feel good with their upbeat sounds. It wasn't just "the song" ..... it was a style, an energy, and all the fun their "off beat" behavior has brought to fans around the world. I vote YES ....

Posted by Sally on Wednesday, 12.28.11 @ 18:21pm


Sally ... BRAVO...very well stated...Thank You...

Posted by Jan on Wednesday, 12.28.11 @ 19:32pm


Sally, everything you have said is irrelevant except the portion quoted below. Fans around the world mean nothing, getting jilted by an agent means nothing. This is the only thing that does:

"True, "Q" and the guys only had one big hit, but that song is still played and recognized as one of the first garage rock bands to succeed."

And that's not even all that true. The Kingsmen, Cannibal And The Headhunters, even very early Jan & Dean were garage acts. Even Paul Revere And The Raiders were before ?. It just doesn't stack up.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 12.29.11 @ 00:29am


Philip, I didn't say they were the first, I said they were ONE of the first ... geesh! The difference in their style of music is what has kept that one song alive. It's recognizable, it's known, A lot of other 60's music has been done and redone to a point, I don't even recognize the originals anymore. Q and his music, especially "96 Tears" are unique .... and that is what makes them special, even today. I have to wonder what even brings folks like yourself to this site ? I have a special love for these guys and that's why I am here ..... These guys were underdogs who got to the top all by themselves, with little or no resources. Maybe they won't make it to the Hall of Fame, but there are a lot of people out there to whom they bring smiles and pride to ..... I'm one of them :-)

Posted by Sally on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 15:35pm


That's tellin' him! If it moves you then don't let anyone make you feel guilty about listening to your favorite music. Rock on!

Posted by Arrow Man on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 16:11pm


"I have to wonder what even brings folks like yourself to this site ?"

I know this was directed towards Philip and not me, but seriously? The intention of this site is to have rational dialogue on whether or not certain artists deserve to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not to serve as a fan site. I'm not saying you can't express your appreciation for artists on here, nor am I trying to police what people say. However, if someone is going to start viewing ? and the Mysterians with a critical eye, well, that's what the site is for (or maybe you missed the "About Us" section?)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 16:50pm


Yeah ... you're right.... I thought about it after I posted it and started thinking about all the public polls that I enjoy looking at. My apology to anyone that were offended ..... Everyone is intended to their opinion.

Posted by Sally on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 18:58pm


LOL ... ENTITLED was the word I intended to type!!

Posted by Sally on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 20:24pm


Believe me Sally, I've been called worse things than you've dished out. Like Tahvo said, the focus of this site is the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame, not on the artists who may or may not make it. That's what this is about, and this is where I'm coming from. ?&tM were unique to a degree, but heavy keyboard pop-rock was fluorishing about the same time as them. Other acts from about the same time that featured a somewhat similar sound included the Swinging Medallions ("Double Shot"), and the Sir Douglas Quintet ("She's About A Mover"). And to some degree, being one of the first isn't enough to make the Hall, it's who is the actual first (popular) act to do it.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 23:17pm


"Like Tahvo said, the focus of this site is the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame, not on the artists who may or may not make it."

But if this site is called Future Rock Legends then the focus has to be on the artists who may or may not make it into the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame. I don't come here often but am I missing something? It always fascinates me how people come to blows over such subjective nonsense. I can think of hundreds of things more important to argue about.

Posted by Arrow Man on Saturday, 12.31.11 @ 01:02am


No, Arrow Man ... You're not missing anything.. but I think Phillip missed my apology for the one statement I made yesterday. It got "shot off the hip" unintentionally. One apology shoulda covered it ;-)

Posted by Sally on Saturday, 12.31.11 @ 10:29am


Sally, sorry, I did catch your apology. I just felt you didn't really need to apologize. Like I said, I've been called much worse. I was just trying to say, "that's cool, back to the discussion..."

Arrow Man, first off the site used to be called Future Rock Hall, which I'm guessing caused legal trouble forcing the name change. You're right though that it is about who might make it and who might not, but it's not just artists... we've discussed industry professionals who should or should not be in, as well. But the majority of Sally's original post was about "the joy they've brought to millions" and how she personally loves them. Heck, I like them too. But if the omissions of other major bands with massive fan bases lobbying to get them inducted is any indicator, it's that the joy brought to millions and any particular fan's personal love a band means exactly nothing when considering whether or not a band will, or even should get in. I thought I made that relatively clear and that I was pretty civil in stating that.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 12.31.11 @ 14:54pm


ONE OF THE FIRST HISPANIC "GARAGE BANDS"
NOW THAT'S WORTHY!

Posted by sstikeleather on Sunday, 01.1.12 @ 10:16am


From what I understand he is married and his wife's name is Joy. Am I right or wrong? Does anybody know?

Posted by MuddMann on Friday, 02.3.12 @ 13:23pm


That article about his house fire was written kinda weird. I think the person "Joy" is referring to his manager's wife .....

Posted by Sally on Monday, 02.6.12 @ 01:24am


Question Mark and the Mysterians did have more then one hit record. their second hit was called
I Need Somebody that went to the top 20 on BillBoard. they also recorded Can't Get Enough You Baby which Smash Mouth did a version of, that sounded like Question Mark and the Mysterians version with the 60's keybd sound, Their song 96 Tears was their biggest hit and most people just remember that, which is only natural.

Posted by Robert on Friday, 02.24.12 @ 00:21am


The hit "Can't Get Enough of You Baby, by Smash Mouth, was played in the movie "Home Fries" with Drew Barrymore. I always wondered if "Q" got any credit for that in the form of any royalties. Wonder ... It was their 3rd record, and I believe "Q" wrote it. It is on the "Action" LP record recorded by Cameo.

Posted by Saly on Friday, 02.24.12 @ 20:36pm


? didn't write it. He and the Mysterians weren't even the first to record it. It was first done by the 4 Seasons back in 1964, appearing on either their Dawn (Go Away) or their Rag Doll album. Can't remember which, but they did it first.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 13:12pm


That's strange ... The Album, "Action" by Question Mark and the Mysterians came out by Cameo, in 1963 ,,,, It would be interesting to know WHO actually wrote it!!!!

Posted by Sally on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 13:50pm


There is yet another reference to refer here. The CD entitled "Do You Feel It Baby?" has info that clears it up .... The song in question was actually written by Linzer-Randall (Linz Music/Rand Song Music)

Posted by Sally on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 14:01pm


"Can't Get Enough of You Baby" is a song written by Denny Randell and Sandy Linzer and recorded by various artists, including the Protopunk band ? & the Mysterians in 1967. Their version reached # 56 on the Billboard Hot 100 when it was released as a single. The song was recorded in 1966 by The Toys on Dyno Voice. It was also recorded by The Four Seasons for their album Working My Way Back To You and More Great New Hits in 1966.

It was famously covered by Smash Mouth for their album Astro Lounge (1999).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Can%27t_Get_Enough_of_You_Baby&oldid=458493947"

Posted by Sally on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 14:19pm


Randell And Linzer wrote a lot of songs for the Four Seasons. I think that list includes "Let's Hang On"... anyway, it's a safe bet that the Four Seasons got their hands on it first.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 14:58pm


Another song that ? and the Mysterians wrote and recorded that is a great song and I really enjoy and remember hearing back in 1969 (when I was just a kid!), "Ain't It A Shame". If you research it, you can't find anything except the Youtube video. This was another example of their copyright taken from them and their tapes never released back to them.

Posted by Diane on Saturday, 02.25.12 @ 20:17pm


Well
If Sally says they made people feel good that should be good enough to get in. Why not?
Music is all about feelings!
I say make it so I really no nothing much about them I do like the song I am sure other should get in before them but......

Posted by HAPPY on Sunday, 02.26.12 @ 14:39pm


there's a hell of a lot of other bands more important in front of them though.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 02.26.12 @ 14:47pm


Thanks Happy ;-) Their music DOES make me feel good !!! In my humble opinion, it is a GOOD example of the simplicity that reigned back in the late 50's and early 60's .... Something that many people have forgotten about. I'm sure that other groups, like the Four Seasons, (also one of my favorites) amd Sam the Sham ;-) brought siimilar good feelings. 'Q's STYLE stayed for many years, and was emulated for decades to follow, even into the punk-rock era, with moderate changes and more modern production methods ..... I don't remember when I last heard "Big Girls Don't Cry" on the radio .... but I hear "96 Tears" no less than once a month on classic rock stations. That's saying a lot, since I very rarely listen to the radio ;-\ They are also one of the few music groups that kept the original musicians together. Eddie Serrato, who was the drummer on the original Album, was only sitting in for Robert Martinez (original and current drummer) while he did his civil duty and served in the US Army. I'm sure there are a lot of groups who deserve to make the "Hall of Fame" ... But I will forever thank "Q" and the guys for showing a spirit of "go for it" and for putting a smile on my face when I pop their CD's into the player and the sounds make me want to dance!!!

Posted by Sally on Sunday, 02.26.12 @ 21:19pm


Sally, big diff comparing Big Girls to 96 Tears... the Four Seasons had 15 Top Ten hits alone (5 of which hit #1), 48 in the Hot 100. ? had only one top ten hit, and that same one is the only one that gets any airplay, whereas a good dozen or so by the Four Seasons get played. It's more fair to ask when was the last time you heard a Four Seasons song get played.

Also, I don't know when classic rock stations played 96 Tears. I've never heard one that did. Oldies stations, yes. Classic rock, no.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 02.27.12 @ 17:36pm


As a matter of fact Phillip ... I haven't heard the Four Seasons in years, other than on an old CD I pull out from time to time. Classic is just another word for "old" like in "classic cars" ... per definition .... "of recognized value" Whether it was one song or 100 ... "Q"s music has "recognized value. Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean that it has no "recognized value" .... Some stations call it "Classic Rock" and some stations call it "Oldies" I call it FUN ;-) .... A rose by any other name smells the same ......Some classic old fart made that statement.... It doesn't matter who it was .... It's a statement I believe to be true ;-) Maybe, because I AM an old fart !! <G>

Posted by Sally on Monday, 02.27.12 @ 20:40pm


As a radio pro, I can tell you there's a huge diff. between "Oldies" and "Classic Rock", though the lines do get blurrier, and there is a bit of crossover.

Oldies stations play but classic rock won't:

Bill Haley
Chuck Berry
Buddy Holly
Beach Boys
Chubby Checker
Sonny And Cher
anything Motown


Classic rock plays but Oldies won't:
Led Zeppelin (usually)
Van Halen
Bon Jovi
Foreigner
Foghat
Aerosmith
AC/DC


See the difference?

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 02.28.12 @ 20:33pm



Hey Phillip ;-) (that's how we say "Hi" here in the south <G> ) I just want to thank you for peeking my interest in the more 'definitive' world of music .... I found this article online .. and .... You obviously know a lot about music! I am a flight attendant for the past 25 years, I'm a mom, a Grandma, a GREAT-Grandma, and a motorcycle rider! I've toured the country many times over in many different modes of travel. I know a lot about PEOPLE .... I was a teenager in the 60's, and actually got to see a live Beatles performance at the Detroit's Olympia Stadium, don't remember if it was '63 or '64 ... that was at least 10 lifetimes ago. I'll forever remember that day ... Most of the people who are commenting on this site are ordinary folks who know the the Mysterian's music ... they love it, or they hate it! They're not experts as you are. To me .. the guys will always be "Classic" and whether you want to believe it or not ... "Classic" radio varies around the country .... If you are in Texas .. "Q" is "Classic" .... If you are in California ... you may not even know who "Question Mark and the Mysterians" are !! Here's the article I found..... Truely ... the definition is blurry at best. I'm sitting here typing as I listen to a Classic Rock Syrius station on Satellite TV ... A lot of this music could fit either catagory! It's not science ... it's perception. Here's the article ....

Who put the "classic" in classic rock?

If you can answer that question definitively, then you can probably also tell us who it was that put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong.

There’s little agreement on the definition of rock, much less the more specialized genre of classic rock. Rock 'n' roll appears in many dictionaries, but its definitions vary substantially.

It's important to make a distinction between classic rock and oldies. Classic rock grew out of a radio format that used to be called AOR -- Album Oriented Rock. Classic rock describes entire albums, whereas the oldies genre encompasses primarily pop singles that were commercially successful.

What makes classic rock classic?

Is it the artist? Not automatically. While a group or artist may have released rock albums in the '70s, there’s no automatic guarantee that everything they ever recorded, or will record, is automatically classic

Posted by Sally on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 00:08am


Who put the "classic" in classic rock?

If you can answer that question definitively, then you can probably also tell us who it was that put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong.

Posted by Sally on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 00:08am
--------------------------------------------------
Who put the "classic" in classic rock radio?

How about Madison Ave. for starters - It's called branding something, w/the hopes of attracting disposable income (ha-ha).

As for the folks who put the "ram" in the "ram-a-lama-ding-dong" - that would be the Hostess Corporation, I believe. They rammed all manner of fillings in their Ding-Dongs, their Yodels, their cupcakes...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 07:09am


Cheesecrop <G> Ok .. not gonna ask LOL But I enjoyed the humor ;-) Just thinkin' about all that gooey stuff in the twinkies, Ho-Ho's etc .... no wonder all my friends went directly to the homemade brownies <G> Madison Ave Aye ? Not a non-comprehensible thought .... Thanks for the grins.

Posted by Sally on Wednesday, 02.29.12 @ 23:53pm


Cool. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 03.1.12 @ 06:38am


Just recently heard ?&mysterians on pbs.I seem to rememberthe song. Anyway ? is one heck of a singer and performer so i vote yes yes yes

Posted by sandy on Saturday, 03.10.12 @ 17:41pm


Hi Sally

Beatles concert was September 6 1964 (they played 2 the same day - never hear of that now!!!), but George did visit in 63 (his sister lived in Chicago at the time). This was in the days before they got the Capitol deal and their releases were consigned to labels such as Vee-Jay, Swan, and Tollie ...

Posted by Simon on Tuesday, 03.13.12 @ 06:03am


Hey Simon ;-) September was about the right month... We went to the State Fair on the same day. WOW ... Memories !! Thanks Simon ;-)

Posted by Sally on Tuesday, 03.13.12 @ 19:57pm


Hey Sally, Cheese actually answered my question pretty well.

When I thought further about it, it kind of struck me that classic rock is pretty much about the shredding guitar. It's also responsible for the "NOT RAWK" movement that you see so prevalent against the nay-sayers towards inducting rappers, disco, soul, etc. artists nito the Hall. It's not racist on its face, but it is kind of telling that the only Black artist that most classic rock stations have in their regular programming is Hendrix, though many of them will have specialty programming that specialize in blues. (Funny enough though, stack the guitar solo in "Hot Stuff" against a lot of other classic guitar solos, and it holds its own ground quite well.)

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 14:08pm


When I thought further about it, it kind of struck me that classic rock is pretty much about the shredding guitar. It's also responsible for the "NOT RAWK" movement that you see so prevalent against the nay-sayers towards inducting rappers, disco, soul, etc. artists nito the Hall. It's not racist on its face, but it is kind of telling that the only Black artist that most classic rock stations have in their regular programming is Hendrix, though many of them will have specialty programming that specialize in blues. (Funny enough though, stack the guitar solo in "Hot Stuff" against a lot of other classic guitar solos, and it holds its own ground quite well.)

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 14:08pm

I think you hit the nail square on the head, Philip. I personally have no problem seeing disco, funk, rap, and other predominantly black forms of music getting better representation. While I'm not the greatest fan of rap, I do like a lot of the early stuff (i.e., Whodini, Grandmaster Flash, Kurtis Blow). That's the stuff that belongs in the RRHOF, not more contemporary (c)rappers like P Diddy, Lay-Z, Wiz Khalifa (Did you know that Wiz Khalifa is an Arabic expression that means "A drunk man pissing?"), and 'Lil Pain in the Ass.

Your comment about Jimi Hendrix being the only black act to receive airplay on classic rock (more like classic cock) gives me an appropriate springboard for the following rant:

Why is it that classic rock stations ignore anything made before the second half of the 1960s? Are these boobs trying to say that rockabilly, rhythm & blues, surf, doo-wop, swamp rock, and other pre-1964 forms of rock are too old? Anyone who doesn't think that Little Richard and Eddie Cochran can rock out as much as AC/DC and Led Zeppelin (More like the Diffused Zippo Lighter, I can't stand them) is clearly wrong in the head. The adjective "classic" implies anything older than a certain year/period, so for so-called class rock stations to ignore the beginning years is erroneous and narrow-minded.

Sure, I like Hendrix, but I don't buy into the "He was the single most inventive guitarist" hype fostered by the rock rags. Sure, most college/high school hipsters namedrop Hendrix to look cool and wear his face on T-shirts, but do they know who the true first black rock 'n' rollers were? I doubt it. Hendrix referenced Screamin' Jay Hawkins' I Put A Spell On You in Purple Haze with the line "Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me." Most people my age wouldn't know that because they only listen to what Rolling Stone and classic rock tell them is great. The way that most members of my generation cherry pick only the biggest names from the past, it's no wonder I can't have a rational conversation with them about music.

Anyway, that's enough of my moanin'. If you (Philip) or anyone else would like to continue this dialogue, feel free. It's nice to be on a site with people whose musical knowledge isn't limited to the same bands that keep turning up on best albums/songs lists. I wish we could all just block out the late '60s/early '70s and mine the other eras that are far worthier of examination.

Zach (currently enjoying some Screamin' Jay Hawkins and The Big Bopper as I type this).

Posted by Zach on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 20:16pm


anyone else would like to continue this dialogue, feel free. It's nice to be on a site with people whose musical knowledge isn't limited to the same bands that keep turning up on best albums/songs lists. I wish we could all just block out the late '60s/early '70s and mine the other eras that are far worthier of examination.

Zach (currently enjoying some Screamin' Jay Hawkins and The Big Bopper as I type this).

Posted by Zach on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 20:16pm
--------------------------------------------------
If you don't mind talking to me, I'll respond. Just promise you won't run from the room screaming.

I grew up in the 1980's & 1990's (high school 80's/college 90's, give or take). I grew up in the Philadelphia area. When I was younger, the stations did draw a line, as you mentioned. One station in the market, WOGL, played what they termed "oldies". They had a range from about 1954-1972/73, roughly. They used to have shows dedicated to Elvis & the Beatles on weekend mornings, & a doo-wop show as well. They'd also have a top 20 countdown on Saturday evenings from 5-7, which I can recall listening to over dinner, where they'd pick a yr. & give you not only 20 songs, but a few extras here & there.

The market also had two stations that prided themselves as "classic" rock stations, WMMR & WYSP. MMR was founded in 68, YSP in 72. Both played music from 1964-1984, minus some stuff (for instance, I never could recall hearing Black Sabbath on either station, unless it was after 11:00 P.M.). Anyhow, it was a mystery as to how the yrs. 1964-1972 overlapped on both station, yet they did. The diff. was in what they were playing. WOGL tended to go w/Brit Invasion groups like Herman's Hermits, the Seekers, etc., & avoided stuff like Jimi Hendrix. MMR/YSP tended to go w/much heavier acid rock, though they would also play singer-songwriters like James Taylor & Carly Simon, which, strangely enough, could also be heard on WOGL (the mind boggles). If you wanted to hear Johnny Otis, you'd go to WOGL; if you wanted Zeppelin, you went to YSP/MMR.

Things changed here in the mid-90's. At the time, we had three modern rock stations (WPST, WDLY, & WDRE). All had a small share of the audience, but nobody had it all. I can recall in November of 95, WYSP dropped it's 64-84 format & tried to scoop up the modern audience. What passes for rock radio today (the 70's/80's/90's/00's format) began around that time. Eventually, MMR made the shift, so's not to get left behind. This, in turn, kind of made WOGL look a little foolish & out-of-date, or so I presume they thought. It was about 7-8 yrs. ago, that they dropped the 50's-70's format, & swuitched to a 60's-80's format (lots of Thriller-era M. Jackson, some Lionel Richie, Huey Lewis, along w/the 60's & 70's that they'd been playing). I presume the logic was that nobody wanted to hear the 50's anymore. Personally, I think this IS in fact Madison Ave. doing it's dirty work.

If you're looking for an outlet, radio-wise, the Univ. of Pennsylvania offers Jerry Blavat a chance to come on-air from 5:00-7:00 on Saturday nights (irony of ironies, that it's the spot I remember the old 'OGL countdown show) & he spins lots of 50's tunes. I heard Larry Williams "Boney Maronie" & Little Richard's "Lucille" on there a way's back. After that, they do a straight blues show (both modern & older). You can give it a listen, if you'd like.

Anywho, that's one man's confusing tale of terrestrial radio, in one location, at one point in time.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 21:28pm


The short answer, Zach, is the Beatles, which shouldn't surprise anyone when noted alongside your upsetness, given your lack of fondness for the Beatles.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 16:08pm


oh come on, you seriously can't be saying that nothing good was produced in the late 60's/ early 70's. that's utter bullshit. if anything i wish we could block out the 50's, good god early rock n roll was dull (aside from little richard and the occasional berry/presley song)

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 16:11pm


Just like I find the synth pop 80's and grunge-90's dull, monotonous, joyless, and even listless. We all have eras we don't particularly care for. And it rather comes through in the voting projects, that's for dang sure. lol

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 16:46pm


Yeah, the lyrics from those 50s and early 60s tunes were so corny and simple. Thanks should go to the true artists from the mid-late 60s and early 70s for all the incredibly deep and enlightening lyrics. If it weren't for people like Frank Zappa and Joni Mitchell, we'd all be walking around today like bobbleheaded simpletons.

Posted by Arrow Man on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 16:59pm


you being sarcastic, or are you just out to rustle my jimmies?

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 17:00pm


No, I totally agree w/you that the 50s were pretty dull, especially lyrically.

Posted by Arrow Man on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 17:08pm


oh right. they were, little richards was the only one who really had that energy, that oomph in his performance. how fats domino got labelled as rock n roll i'll never know, he was more of a jazz singer than anything else.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 17:12pm


oh come on, you seriously can't be saying that nothing good was produced in the late 60's/ early 70's. that's utter bullshit. if anything i wish we could block out the 50's, good god early rock n roll was dull (aside from little richard and the occasional berry/presley song)

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 16:11pm

GFW, you and I have had some good conversations in the past, so I won't let your differing opinion on early rock 'n' roll affect how I view you. However, I must clarify on my point about why we shouldn't be foaming at the mouth about the late '60s/early '70s.

I didn't mean to say that nothing good musically came out of that era. Hell, David Bowie, whom I consider the greatest solo artist of the past half-century, first reached success in that timeframe. Besides Bowie, my other favorite acts from that time are The Doors, The Velvet Underground, The Jimi Hendrix Experience (not as much as I used to, though), T. Rex, MC5, Pink Floyd, and at least 3 or 4 others. I apologize if my original statement confused you.

The intent of my original statement was to express my displeasure at how overhyped the late '60s/early '70s are when it comes to music. Although I did go through a phase when I liked that time, I eventually got tired of it and started checking out other genres. Besides The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, I also have a strong dislike of Janis Joplin, CCR, James Taylor, The Grateful Dead (just about hippy band, for that matter), Carole King, Neil Young, and Neil Diamond. I got tired of hearing about how "great" they are and wanted to discover other eras/styles more deeply. My great-uncle, who was a teenager in the 1950s, introduced me to pretty much all my 1950s favorites. One of my best friends got me hooked on '70s glam rock, punk, and synthpop. The rest I've seeked out on my own.

My musical tastes, as you've probably ascertained, lie more towards big band/swing, rockabilly, blues/rhythm & blues, doo-wop, surf, glam rock, new wave/synthpop, soul, funk, some disco, proto-punk/early punk (I can't stand must of the post-1970s stuff), early glam metal, some arena rock, and a lot of other stuff that can't quite be categorized.

As someone who is seriously interested in preserving pre-1964 music (not just rock) and making sure that more people are aware of it, it sickens my stomach when I see my peers wear Beatles and Led Zeppelin T-shirts as if they were badges of honor. The problem is that they seem to only like the major names and refuse to dig any deeper. I certainly like a lot of music made in 1964 and beyond, but I would never neglect everything made before then. If one has no understanding of or appreciation for the roots, then one's tastes won't truly grow and blossom.

It's good to know that you are a fan of Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Elvis Presley.

Philip, I totally agree with you on grunge for the same reasons, but not on synthpop. I can understand why you don't like the vocals, though. For me, the main draw of synthpop is the instrumentation. For all forms of music, I've always been more drawn to the sound of the instruments than I have to the voices, although there certainly are exceptions. I flat out love the voices of Pat Benatar, Freddie Mercury, Patty Smyth (of Scandal fame), Howlin' Wolf, Bowie, Rob Halford, and Buddy Holly, to name a few.

Posted by Zach on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 17:20pm


I guess my opinions on the matter at hand really is a mixture of what everyone has said so far. I love nearly everything Pre-1964 like Philip and Zach, yet I also love synthpop like GFW, a style Philip doesn't care for. I do agree with what's been said on grunge, though. Used to like it, now I've grown out of it.

If anything I've begun to think of grunge as a bit of an artificially created genre. I mean think about it, couldn't Nirvana be linked to punk and Soundgarden and Alice in Chains to heavy metal. If you want to add Stone Temple Pilots to the mix, well how about we call them plain classic rock? I guess Pearl Jam is the only exception to this rule, really. Tell me, am I being unreasonable?

I could've sworn I saw a similar comparison made on here somewhere but I have no idea where or who posted it or when, nevertheless it has influenced me.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 17:42pm


I guess my opinions on the matter at hand really is a mixture of what everyone has said so far. I love nearly everything Pre-1964 like Philip and Zach, yet I also love synthpop like GFW, a style Philip doesn't care for. I do agree with what's been said on grunge, though. Used to like it, now I've grown out of it.

If anything I've begun to think of grunge as a bit of an artificially created genre. I mean think about it, couldn't Nirvana be linked to punk and Soundgarden and Alice in Chains to heavy metal. If you want to add Stone Temple Pilots to the mix, well how about we call them plain classic rock? I guess Pearl Jam is the only exception to this rule, really. Tell me, am I being unreasonable?

I could've sworn I saw a similar comparison made on here somewhere but I have no idea where or who posted it or when, nevertheless it has influenced me.


Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 17:42pm
--------------------------------------------------
If you saw a comparison, it was probably yours truly.

Proof of what you said about grunge being an artificially created genre can be found by checking out the VH1 series "Metal Evolution", that's just finished (I believe) it's run of original episodes. In the officially designated "grunge" episode, there's a bit where the singer for Creed, Stapp, admits that it was hard to get a beat on what Seattle was about, since the bands were so geniunely different.

This works particularly well when they sit down later w/Nickelback. The singer comes out and talks abut the confusion everyone felt after grunge had passed. Taken along w/Stapp's comments, & reading between the lines, what Nickelback is saying here is, "somebody help us, we want big-time success, but we don't know which one of these bands to rip-off! There's gold in them thar flannels, & we want some of it!"


As for the 50's, I'm w/Zach on this. I don't know who's jumping on the early stuff being dull. Presley gave you a country/blues fusion that sat more toward country, but did it vocally. Berry gave you country blues w/a boogie style on guitar, while Holly lent it a Tex-Mex feel & Haley gave it a stiffer, more rattling touch. Little Richard did it on jump blues, Bo Diddley had a stiffer, more bluesy take on what Berry was doing, & Fats just did it slow blues style.

As for lyrics, Buddy Holly wrote, in one man's opinion, the best romantic song ever in the rock era, a little something called "Well, All Right". Ten lines that say more than many acts did w/whole albums.

When you look at the picture as a whole, that's a lot of interesting offshoots from what's supposed to be a "limited" style, & we didn't even get to Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Link Wray, etc. Kind of reminds me of a certain 90's genre that was supposed to be limited as well, but has a lot mre going for it than people wish to accept. It's all in the interpretations, I say.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 03.19.12 @ 07:52am


fair enough zach, though i don't get why you dislike carole king, she seems rather similar to some of the stuff you just said you like.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 03.19.12 @ 13:03pm


Yeah, the lyrics from those 50s and early 60s tunes were so corny and simple. Thanks should go to the true artists from the mid-late 60s and early 70s for all the incredibly deep and enlightening lyrics. If it weren't for people like Frank Zappa and Joni Mitchell, we'd all be walking around today like bobbleheaded simpletons.

Posted by Arrow Man on Sunday, 03.18.12 @ 16:59pm

Lyrics aren't everything in music. If that were the case, we wouldn't have music, just spoken word performances.

Dismissing the lyrics of all '50s and early '60s songs as "corny and simple" only belies the historical record. Let's take Chuck Berry's Brown Eyed Handsome Man as an example. The song subtly and cleverly uses "brown eyed" as a synonym for "brown skinned." This is further exemplified in the opening verse, which follows:

Arrested on charges of unemployment,
he was sitting in the witness stand
The judge's wife called up the district attorney
Said you free that brown eyed man
You want your job you better free that brown eyed man

I generally despise socially conscious songs, but Brown Eyed Handsome Man is an exception. Even though Berry called it "Brown Eyed Handsome Man" rather than "Brown Skinned Handsome Man," the racial themes are still present, albeit in a subtle form. The general message still gets across. This is something that the grossly overrated singer-songwriters of the second half of the 1960s and early 1970s never mastered. Hacks like Neil Young used their music as mere bully pulpits for spreading their political views. The musicianship, which is what really matters in music, took a back seat to caterwauling vocals and preachy lyrics during that era.

A subtle song that speaks about a social issue is more effective than one that is overbearing. Even if one is oblivious to the racial implications of Brown Eyed Handsome Man, that person can still enjoy the song for its other qualities (i.e., Berry's vocals and guitar riffs, Johnnie Johnson's piano riffs, etc.). A Neil Young song like Ohio is only effective if one is familiar with the Kent State shootings. Consequently, Ohio is merely a hokey relic of its time while Brown Eyed Handsome Man can be appreciated by anyone regardless of their generation.

I don't listen to music for history lessons or political brainwashing. We get enough political BS from the lie-brals and con-servatives every day. Life's too short to piss and moan about the problems you have no control over. I can appreciate serious lyrics in songs (i.e., Pat Benatar's Hell is for Children, Pink Floyd's Dogs of War, etc.). The key is to be as clever and subtle so they don't come across as preachy. Invoking specific names and incidents only dates the songs.

I would daresay that Al Jolson recordings from the 1920s sound more contemporary and fresh than the whiny, poorly-written protest songs of the '60s. In fact, I can say that with confidence since I've heard Al Jolson and like his voice a lot. It's much more preferable to the screechy voice of Neil Young (I call him Nails Piercing Through Your Ears, which is what his voice most closely resembles).

Posted by Zach on Sunday, 03.25.12 @ 21:35pm


Hey There Zach ;-) I have truly enjoyed reading the conversations here of late ..... when I can catch a spare minute or two, I will google this "Brown Eyed Handsome Man" song ... which regretfully, I cannot call to memory right now. I went back a few posts to see that you have a great-uncle who was a teen in the 50's which tells me that you are probably a younger man, at least in my eyes, since I was a teens in the early 60's. ;-) I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you have to realize that "opinions" are formed by the enviroment one matures in. When I was growing up, girdles HAD to be worn by women, IF they wanted to be of a "fashionable" mind ... and men were FORCED to go to Viet Nam by the DRAFT system! MUSIC and POETRY, ART and organized PROTEST MARCHES were just about the only way to fight the "System" ..Today, we have the INTERNET and MANY TECHNICAL means of getting our feelings out.
When you speak of the lyrics from the 60's, you seem to think of them as lame. Go back and watch a 50's movie, and those scripts are REALLY lame, even to ME !!! But that's the way people communicated then! If nothing else, TRY to look at it as a history lesson, and know that today .... I'm not so sure that THIS generation even COMMUNICATES! I work on airplanes where SOME people, don't know HOW to say "Hello" or even order a drink form the Flight Attendant. People don't talk to each other anymore.... they talk to technical devices ;-( Please know, that the music of the 60's and early 70's .... speaks the language of that time ..... It changed the way our nation thought about living in the USA .... The "HIPPYS" of the 60's help to make YOUR life .... whatever it is today... I'm not always sure that was a good thing either!!!!!

Posted by Sally on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 04:09am


"50's movies are lame?" 12 Angry Men is one of the best scripted films out there and it is a 50's movie. In fact, it blows many movies nowadays out of the water (acting included)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 05:33am


Go back and watch a 50's movie, and those scripts are REALLY lame, even to ME !!!

Posted by Sally on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 04:09am
--------------------------------------------------
I don't know...

Bogart in "The Caine Mutiny" & "The Harder They Fall" (Bogie's THE #1 actor, at least in this person's opinion)

Wayne in "The Searchers" & "Rio Bravo"...

The aforementioned "12 Angry Men"...

Kevin McCarthy, trying to warn people that the Pod People have arrived in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (& I defy anyone on this site to suggest thatthere was ever an actor w/greater stamina then McCarthy. The man ran for 22 yrs. before the Pod People caught up to him in that 78 remake!)

And on top of all that, the awesome filmic library of Ed Wood! Nothing matches the brilliance of "Plan 9 From Outer Space"!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 18:48pm


"Bogie's THE #1 actor, at least in this person's opinion" -Cheesecrop

This person's, too.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 21:06pm


Sally, I can't say I agree with your assertion that movies of the 1950s had lame scripts. I can point to such classics as North by Northwest and On the Beach as examples of '50s films with well-developed characters, dialogue, and scenes. Films are a visual medium, so I don't place as much importance on how the actors say their lines but rather on how they can express themselves silently (e.g., facial expressions).

My favorite kinds of movies tend to be science fiction, horror, fantasy, comedy, and action. While I realize action films may not allow for compelling screenplays, that's not the reason you tend to watch them. There are exceptions, though, like Sylvester Stallone's "Nothing is over" speech in First Blood. Don't laugh, Stallone is a much better actor than you might think. As John Rambo, he's depicting the emotional breakdown of a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD. The somewhat indistinct dialogue and hysterical mannerisms are appropriate for the character.

The best way to summarize my movie tastes is that I primarily like drive-in/grindhouse type movies, along with a steady diet of old Hollywood classics. I mainly watch Japanese kaiju eiga fests (Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra, King Ghidorah, and friends), comedy team films of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, '80s teen comedies, '70s blaxploitation actioners, 1950s sci-fi/horror monster mashes, the British Hammer Studios gothic horrors, and Alfred Hitchcock mysteries/suspense thrillers, to name some.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 03.26.12 @ 21:51pm


Geesh, Guys! You are tough on an old broad ;-) I don't imagine when it comes to actual "dialogue" that Godzilla, Rodan, Moathra, etc really matters. Like you say, people don't watch those movies for the story, necessarily ;-) I'm sure that Stallone's "Rambo" and all the "Body Snatching" movie stars weren't getting their success on the "language" either LOL I see that "Lame" was probably not the best choice of words in my original post regarding movie scripts. What I was trying to get at is that the music and movies of the 50's and 60's were trying to tell how people of those era's felt about life. There were so many censorships in those days for language AND presentation on the public screens and airways ... well, it came out .... WEIRD !!!! It has gone way over to the OTHER side now, where there is little or NO censorship, and I don't even find too many movies made today that are worth watching. I'm sure you will all make your best attempt to tear THAT statement apart next, so I'll just get about my day and check back in about 48 hours and see where ya'll take it from here. ;-)

Posted by Sally on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 10:17am


You like kaiju movies too? you're officialy awesome, I got my name from a kaiju movie!

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 12:28pm


"I don't even find too many movies made today that are worth watching."

I can agree with you on this 100%, Sally. The state of movies today is quite pitiful for the most part. The trend of remaking past movies has gotten to such an absurd level that movies that aren't even a decade old yet have already undergone the remaking process (the wonderfully wacky British comedy Death at a Funeral comes to mind). The Hollywood studios would save a lot more money just releasing the original movies to theaters and (hopefully) attracting the younger audiences as well as those who saw them on their first runs. It's just wishful thinking on my part, though.

Although I'm only 23, I identify more with the pop culture of previous decades. As I mentioned before, kaiju eiga films have always been a sentimental favorite of mine since childhood. I was exposed to them through videotapes and cable network airings in the 1990s (the last decade you could actually see this stuff on TV with any regularity). My dad grew up back in the 1970s when you could both catch them on TV AND at the movie theaters, either on first-run or re-releases. If I could speak and understand Japanese, I'd probably be able to better evaluate the scripts of these kaiju eiga films I love. However, like I said earlier, the actors' facial expressions, vocal inflections, and hand gestures can do just as much to convey an emotion or an idea as a rousing speech.

Sadly, the days when movies were fun and imaginative are gone forever. The blood, sweat, and tears that men like Ray Harryhausen, Willis O'Brien, Eiji Tsuburaya, Roy Ashton, Rick Baker (one of the few pre-CGI makeup/special effects master who's still active), Stan Winston, John Carl Buechler, and countless others poured into making the unbelievable believable has been replaced by soulless, interchangeable CGI catastrophes. Occasionally a movie may come along that recaptures the magic of yesteryear and temporarily wakes up the masses (i.e., Napoleon Dynamite, the original Death at a Funeral, Night at the Museum, etc.), but they are few and far between.

I hope I didn't come off as harsh in my reply, Sally. Since you were a teenager in the 1960s, I can understand why the lyrics of many of the songs of that era resonated with you. When you are a witness to history, the events will impact your life to some degree and influence how you think. As you said, people used music to express their social views on those days. Although I've expressed my dislike of certain '60s bands before (mainly The Beatles, CCR, The Grateful Dead, etc.), I would never deny their place in music history. After all, they were among the icons of their era and best reflected the times. Each generation has its music that evokes fond memories of younger years. Sadly, I was born about a good 50-20 years too late and cannot identify with the crap that passes for popular music today. I personally feel more attached to the popular culture of previous generations (the end of the the 1980s are the cutoff for me), although I occasionally make an exception here and there.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 03.27.12 @ 22:13pm


You are wise for your years, Zach ;-) Thank you so much for sharing those thoughts.

Posted by Sally on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 10:31am


When i was a kid I just loved the kaiju films for the massive monster fights. Haven;t watched them in ages though.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 11:38am


Zach & Sally - Would you consider joining us & voting in the Song & Album projects? I think I can speak for everyone when I say we'd like to have you involved here.

If you 've had a chance to look at the pages here, you'll get an idea of how we do it.

Song Project: 1st 24 hrs. we nominate 2 songs (plus an optional Voter's Choice song - something obscure)
Next five days: We vote.

Album Project: No nominations - we choose two albums we'd like to see inducted.

We tally up the votes, & at the end we place a minimum of 5 songs & 2 albums in each month.

The whole thing is open to anyone. I focused on the two of you since you've been here several times. Care to jump in?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 17:24pm


Thanks for the invite, Cheesecrop! I've actually lurked on the Song & Album Project pages for a while, but wasn't sure what the procedures were for them. Now I do. I really coming to this site and having serious conversations about potential inductees and enshrined acts. I'll go right over to both pages and make my picks.

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 17:54pm


I'll check it out further when I get some time... Lots of my favorites already listed in both forums. Thanks for the invite ;-)

Posted by Sally on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 21:13pm


? mark has been rockin since 1960.they
should be inducted just cause they made it as
rockin Hispanics. ? mark still puts on a good honest entertaing performance. their music
still sounds well being from the early 60's.

Posted by " mark me on Friday, 05.17.13 @ 01:10am


I do not give a flying-flip about Question being gay. I am not interested in what he does in the bedroom. I like the people who keep the old music alive. More power to him. If he believes he is from outer space, that makes him all the more interesting.

Posted by Dan on Sunday, 08.11.13 @ 18:05pm


To quote John Lennon, 96 Tears is about the best rocknroll song ever.

Posted by June I on Wednesday, 08.14.13 @ 21:53pm


While ? And the Mysterians had only one #1 hit, 96 Tears, they actually charted FIVE singles on the Billboard/Cashbox charts. Q is NOT dead (at least not unless he passed in the last hour) and in fact has been consistantly performing all these years and the old Mysterians reformed a few years back. He lost EVERYTHING including his gold record, his dogs and everything related to the band and has been repeated ripped off for royalties...? And The Mysterians hit #1 as the kids of Mexican migrant farm workers while still high school kids, in a time when they couldnt even play some places because of their heritage. I cant think of another band who kicked open as many doors as they did ... Yes the DO deserve to be there...

Posted by Susie Martin on Monday, 04.28.14 @ 22:06pm


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. Basically, this sums up our policy.

No HTML code is allowed.




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