The Stooges

Rock & Roll Hall of Famer

Category: Performer

Inducted in: 2010

Inducted by: Billie Joe Armstrong

Nominated in: 1997   1998   2004   2005   2006   2007   2009   2010

First Eligible: 1995 Ceremony

Inducted Members: Iggy Pop, Ron Asheton, Scott Asheton, James Williamson and Dave Alexander


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 1997 (ranked #83) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
The Stooges (1969)
Funhouse (1970)
Raw Power (1973)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
I Wanna Be Your Dog (1969)
1969 (1969)
Search And Destroy (1973)

The Stooges @ Wikipedia

The Stooges Videos

Comments

105 comments so far (post your own)

WTF? Why have they not been inducted yet?

Posted by Eric on Thursday, 08.3.06 @ 22:37pm


Easily the best band of this year's nominees.

Posted by Brendan on Saturday, 10.28.06 @ 18:32pm


Iggy Pop never had a creative idea in his life. The Stooges are as derivative as the day is long

Posted by Michael Boyd on Tuesday, 10.31.06 @ 09:21am


That's funny, because Raw Power renders about two-thirds of the punk revolution redundant.

Posted by Kit on Friday, 11.17.06 @ 11:32am


Iggy and the Stooges... all day long, forever and ever and always !!!!!!! Without a doubt, they will be inducted.

Posted by Pinky on Sunday, 12.17.06 @ 16:39pm


All I can say is that it's about damn time! Viva el Stooges!

Posted by Chris Edwards on Sunday, 01.7.07 @ 05:28am


IGGY SUCKS

Posted by dtg on Monday, 01.15.07 @ 18:40pm


the stooges rule. funhouse is a masterpeice and raw power is the most memorible energetic albums ive ever heard. iggy rules along with the asheton brothers.

Posted by david spooks on Wednesday, 03.21.07 @ 17:04pm


great moment at the '07 induction ceremony when Patti Smith played that stooges song -- sending the voters a not-so-subtle message.

Posted by chuck on Sunday, 03.25.07 @ 09:40am


That's funny, because PAtti Smith did NOT play a Stooges song at the '07 Induction Ceremony. She opened with a Stones song, and the rest were her own.

Posted by `Marty E. on Monday, 03.26.07 @ 01:01am


Chuck is referring to the show-ending jam, when Patti and REM played I Wanna Be Your Dog.

Posted by Kit on Monday, 03.26.07 @ 01:07am


The fact that the Ronettes are in the hall while Iggy isn't is a joke. Without Iggy you don't have bands like the Ramones, Clash, Pistols, X, etc. Iggy has never sold out and attempted to be popular- a true rebel that is what rock and roll is all about. Maybe he should cover "Be My Baby" and he could get in. But then "a nice 45 minute Louie Louie would be nice", lol. Funhouse, Raw Power, and Metallic KO are classics that no other band would dare tackle during the neo-hippie days. Whether they like him or not, get with the program RRHOF and give the legend his due.

Posted by Matt on Wednesday, 03.28.07 @ 03:18am


Take a look guys...they've been nominated 6 times...it's going to stick in one of these days. They will make the hall of fame very soon.

Posted by maplejet on Thursday, 04.5.07 @ 14:48pm


Michael Boyd you are a flaming idiot. No offence to Iggy's album.

Posted by Starr on Sunday, 06.24.07 @ 12:52pm


Iggy and his boys have been nominated six times. I believe next year they'll finally get in.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 10:44am


if the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, and Patti Smith are in because of their contributions to punk, then the Stooges should be in as well

Posted by DJ on Monday, 07.23.07 @ 11:37am


I am not a fan of punk at all (as many of you know), but of course IP and the Stooges were influential - I mean c'mon, like it or not. Although, it is still crazy that they keep putting in punk bands and no progressive - shows an obvious bias there to the "fuck ups" that really have limited musical talent in the purest sense of the word.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 17:36pm


I'm not going to deny that the Hall is biased, but it seems like you're compelled to say everything in the stupidest way possible.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 18:54pm


Really?:

"It was not uncommon for Iggy Pop to leap off the stage (thus inventing the "stage dive"), flash his genitals, smear raw meat (and on one occasion peanut butter) over his chest and/or cut himself with broken bottles"

"But his personal life was often in shambles, as he struggled with drug addiction, mental illness..."

Sounds like a fuck up to me :-) Like I said, he was a highly influential fuck up. And, if you don't like what I have to say, that is too fucking bad. Other people are entitled to their opinions on this site. And, frankly I am tired of your "know it all" attidude towards me and everyone else that disagrees with you.

And, yes, I do think punk music has its place in Rock, but it is in fact quite limited in the "talent" category. You obviously disagree with that (I would assume) but I gotta call it like I see it....

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 20:13pm


C'mon now. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that, rather than not being bright enough to know what you're saying, you are intentionally making blanket implications (all punk is "untalented" and full of "fuck-ups").

If you want technicality, Google "pronk." If you want people who aren't "fuck-ups," Google "straight edge." I really don't care if you like punk or not, but in my "opinion," you don't miss an opportunity to say whatever bull pops into your head.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 22:36pm


You are the literal and not so bright one. Of course, not ALL punk artists are fuck ups, but many are. And, most (NOT necesarily all) are not very talented - ya' know the ones playing that one chord rhythm guitar shit that passes for "music" and makes me want to vomit - that is the stuff that I was talking about - not the talented punk bands, that is not who I was referring to.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 05:18am


"that is the stuff that I was talking about - not the talented punk bands, that is not who I was referring to." -Anon

Then fucking learn to SAY that - clarify and articulate; qualify.. instead of, as William is saying very clearly, blurting out categorical and dismissive bits of Anon-isms.
It's not us Anon... it's you.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 09:08am


Your giving me the "Its not me, its you routine." (i.e. see Seinfeld)- LOL, LOL Dude, lighten up - it is comical to see you "jump in" to a debate you are not even involved in - and you get all pumped up....

I don't have to say anything...so stop directing traffic. If people are too literal not to figure it out - that is not my problem. Of course there are some talented punk bands,, but most suck big time - is that clear? "CRYSTAL"

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 18:43pm


Most bands of any sort suck, your precious prog included.

You might be daft enough to think that it's out failing for "taking you too literally," even though I explicitly said I thought you KNEW what you were doing, but communication goes two ways, and you have to take some initiative to not be misunderstood, not just assume everyone will read only your purest intentions (and again, I fervently believe you had none).

So yeah, try harder or don't try at all.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 21:00pm


"Most bands of any sort suck, your precious prog included."


True, I hate much of progressive music, as much of it is masturbatory and boring (i.e. see Dream Theater or ELP)

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 21:17pm


"- it is comical to see you "jump in" to a debate you are not even involved in - and you get all pumped up...."

You're mistaking garden variety agitaion with agression; that is a symptom of your hyper-defensive nature, Anon. You iritate me because you expect the rest of us to listen to and dialogue with you despite your misanthropic tendencies and your tedious games. When confronted, you constantly pretend that you never said or implied a thing we all know you did. You're lazy. And a bufoon.

As for "jumping in" - where do you fancy that you are? Do you not understand the nature of a FORUM?
This is a public meeting place for open discussion; wer'e supposed to comment when something sparks our interest or ire, Glombus. Do you view these scuff-ups as schoolyard fights that we are supposed to "stay out of"?

So.... you've given that Iggy was influential, do you think he "Sucked"? How about Husker Du? Do they suck? Are there any punk/punk flavored acts you don't think s-u-c-k?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 21:37pm


Did you just use the word "fancy" instead of "think" in your post? Where do YOU think you are????

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 05:41am


I do undestand the impetus for punk, but do not find that I generally like the music for a number of reasons. Bands that I do like would be more mainstream, like the Clash. In any event, here are descriptors of punk I found:

"Complicated guitar solos are considered self-indulgent and unnecessary"

"Bass guitar lines are often basic"

"Punk rock vocals sometimes sound nasal, and are often shouted instead of sung in a conventional sense"

"punk rock was "rock and roll by people who didn't have very much skills as musicians but still felt the need to express themselves through music"

"Production is minimalistic, with tracks sometimes laid down on home tape recorders."

Sorry, but it is just not for me....not sure if it is the screaming vocals, lack of skill, or just the adolescent attitude often reflected in the trite lyrics...

I do love the song "I wanna be sedated" by the Ramones - that song kicks ass.

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 05:55am


So, by your logic, you must only like Hollywood blockbuster movies, and anything that makes less than $100 million isn't worth your time because it's too "underground" and it's "underground for a reason." And only popular tv shows are worth watching, because if no one's watching, it must suck, right?

I think it's pretty clear you have a narrow scope of music that you like, and that's fine. But don't denigrate music that you have never listened to or cared to learn about. If you have to do research and quote nameless articles about bands and genres you don't listen to, you're wasting everyone's time because you don't really know what you're talking about.

Posted by c.w. on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 08:57am


Well Anon, at first I was going to congratulate you on a refreshingly diginified and intelligible comeback argument (on Punk).
But then as I read it again, I realize that your response is actually very cloudy . I now can't tell if you ever had a clear idea of what your own, authentic objections to Iggy/The Stooges were. Looks from here like you just went out once again and Wikied "Punk" and co-opted what you read as your reasons
("yea, yea.. what they said - that's it!")

You know, word-for-word Wiki references are appropriate in very limited circumstances. They're also often relative.
Quoting Wiki as your Holy Book of Armaments looks goofy and impotent to form your own thoughts.

--And yea, I used the word "fancy". It was intentionally flippant and wise-ass. I hope that sarcasm detector in your head has a warranty, man.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 09:59am


The Wiki references were not accurate?? Hmmm...Fancy that....everyone says on these sites to do your "research" and, so I did. Now I am lambasted for that....I swear, I just want to go into a corner and cry :-( plus, I happen to agree with the WIki description of punk...

Posted by Anon on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 10:06am


Oh, and CW, I like all kinds of things - I just find punk to be annoying for the most part and talentless for the most part - if you do not like my opinion, well too bad. Gheez, I guess we should all just agree here - what is this communism?

Posted by Anon on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 10:09am


Look Anon, take it easy.
(Heavy sigh of weariness.....)
I don't want to beat you into submission to the point of despair. It's alright.
You have a right to your opinion as much as anyone. Perhaps it is time to search yourself and just ask, "Why do I annoy so many?"
You just need to not so desperately seek to be right or smart that you will sabotage your self.
Just think about what you are writing - alright, man? Just hesitate before ytou hit SEND.
Relax. Don't go postal on us now. It's just a stupid Rock and Roll site.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 10:13am


Dude, the curl up in a corner was a joke...LOL, LOL....it takes a lot more than going back and forth on a blog to beat me down. Plus, I am annoying? MB that is true, but I can think of some other annoying people on this site..

But, in all seriousness, thanks for your kind words....

Posted by Anon on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 10:39am


In a week filled with cross-country driving, furniture buying, and all the other headaches that come with moving, it's comforting in an odd way to come back and see Anon saying stupid things. I'm glad there's one rock of consistency I can count on.

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 20:25pm


It's become a family of sorts. Really wish we had our own message board to continue the discussions with more depth/arguing.

Posted by Casper on Friday, 08.17.07 @ 00:36am


Of course my words are stupid, b/c: A) They do not agree with you, B) you love punk music and I believe that most of it sucks and is pretty talentless.

So, naturally you will lambaste me - you are way too predictable Kit and pretty much an asshole.

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 08.17.07 @ 05:49am


STAY DOWN, ANON....STAY DOWN!!!

Posted by shawn on Friday, 08.17.07 @ 08:50am


Actually Anon, even when I agree with you you end up saying it in such a tortured, ridiculous, base way that I have to take issue with you anyway.

Posted by Kit on Saturday, 08.18.07 @ 16:30pm


"I believe that most of it sucks and is pretty talentless"

maybe you should have put it as most of the punk THAT I'VE HEARD OF or THAT I'M AWARE OF, as I'm just a LITTLE bit doubtful that you've heard all of punk music. Probably no one has.

Technically YOU couldn't say you like Prog, as there are too many shit bands, as you mentioned. But even I'd admit that Britpop got pretty terrible ie The Twang, Menswear...

And as for Kit being 'too predictable' and 'pretty much an asshole', i'd like to say that a least its not predicatble AND bullshit

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 10.17.07 @ 13:07pm


"maybe you should have put it as most of the punk THAT I'VE HEARD"

Well, of course that is true - I though that would have been self-evident.

"Technically YOU couldn't say you like Prog."

Actually, just because I like Rush does not mean that I like progressive - you are making assumptions. One, Rush was really only progressive for a few albums. Two, in fact, I agree with Kit (and I should not have referred to him as an asshole - that was below the belt and juvenile) that a lot of progressive is masturbatoy and boring. i.e. -I can't stand Dream Theater.

That is the point - I really try to listen to music and not pay attention to the "category." I try to keep it visceral. That probably contradicts my statments about punk, but I really did not mean that about punk, well not entirely, just somewhat. I think that day I was just annoyed with Kit, so I said that to get a rise - more juvenile antics. There is some punk I do like when I am in the mood. Anyway, gotta run....btw, where is kit, have not heard from him in awhile

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 10.17.07 @ 18:44pm


The Clash over the Stooges? Funny. I love the Clash, but their impact isn't as great as the Stooges'.

Also, from reading the previous posts, I can see that that guy Anonymous must be a bit of a hoot!

Posted by micheal on Tuesday, 11.27.07 @ 13:07pm


My life's been unremarkable. I haven't been up to much recently. I've just been letting everything wash over me lately, not that it matters.I looked at the world.

Posted by emanuelleer on Tuesday, 02.19.08 @ 08:54am


Maybe now, after they gave the only exciting performance in this year's otherwise deadly dull induction ceremony, the voters will finally remember to pick them.

Posted by Wayne on Friday, 03.14.08 @ 21:21pm


They influenced the sex pistols!!!!!!!! enough said lol

Posted by bryan on Saturday, 03.15.08 @ 08:36am


I notice alot of comments suggesting that 'talent' should be a consideration for any 'artist' nominated into the RRHOF. Fortunately, 'talent' is about the last thing anyone needs to make terrifying and awe-inspiring rock and roll music. Too often 'talent' and 'skill' serves only to clutter and dillute the emotional urgency, power and thrust that makes the greatest of rock music so relevant and satisfying. This is why the Stooges are still vital and fresh, while say, Rick Wakeman is laughably dull and dated. The seeming ignorance of this fact by the nominating commitee on the continued influence and inspiration of groups such as the Stooges, MC5, New York Dolls or Alice Cooper is quite frankly contemptable.

Then again, in an era of insipid indie-rock by groups with names like 'Bright Eyes' and 'Snow Patrol', one wonders if maybe the Hall was right about Paul Simon getting in while the Stooges do not...

Posted by Ward on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 10:48am


Ward, you make an excellent point, and one I agree with, but it is wrong to impugn Paul Simon to solidify your case. He is consumately talented and legendary. It's enough to lament the absence of MC5, Stooges, etc.

Posted by Blue on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 10:55am


Yes, the Stooges couldn't play their instruments very well. But there are plenty of other bands/ musicians in bands who were actually quite talented, but they just didn't WANT to take solos and have everything sound like it was produced in some box in paradise. (See: Greg Ginn, who actually had some training, and Bad Brains, who used to be a goddamn jazz fusion band before they decided that they WANTED to play really fast and really loud rock music). The point is, it shouldn't be about talent alone - why do you think everyone hated people like Steve Vai except guitar nerds? The Stooges (along with Eno, Beefheart, Joy Division, Kraftwerk, etc) deserve the induction hands down.

Posted by Jack on Thursday, 04.10.08 @ 21:07pm


Let's face it, The Stooges even forty years later are never going to compromise enough to get into the RRHOF. So what ? Ig and The Stooges have already made their mark on immortality with their timeless recordings plus the massive influence on modern day music. It is hard to believe that their debut was released in 1969.
I doubt very much that The Stooges are bothered by such trivia as the RRHOF. After all, it is hard to take seriously anybody who voted for The Dave Clark Five !

Posted by Rob J on Saturday, 08.23.08 @ 08:16am


"After all, it is hard to take seriously anybody who voted for The Dave Clark Five !"-Rob J

This is an open question for "Rob J"...were you even around during the Dave Clark 's heyday. If so you'd realize how hard it was to get any airplay on mainstream AM radio...which was about the only outlet that was dedicated to music. The DC5 were one of the originals who piqued everyone's interest in "The British Invasion". Before that, popular music, for a variety of reasons, had pretty much gone south (Elvis was in the Army, Buddy Holly was dead, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-yr. old cousin, etc...). We were in the midst of an awful "teen idol" era (Fabian, Frankie Avalon,etc...), and the American music scene desperately needed a shot in the arm.

Doesn't this all sound familiar? I actually think the American music scene could use some sort of an "invasion" now...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.23.08 @ 10:09am


...Who the Fu@k are The Stooges???

QM

Posted by Question Mark on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 16:19pm


Please say you are kidding QM

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 16:58pm


This is the year my friends.

And the question is, who gives the induction ceremony. I am all for Sylvain from the Dolls. But I am betting that it might be Bowie.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 11:36am


This is the year my friends.

And the question is, who gives the induction ceremony. I am all for Sylvain from the Dolls. But I am betting that it might be Bowie.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 11:36am

Freakin a! How about BOTH Bowie and Sylvain how cool would that be!

Posted by Lynn on Wednesday, 09.24.08 @ 11:41am


RAW POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Mike on Sunday, 11.16.08 @ 15:57pm


I have said this before and I will say it again, the Stooges have been nominated 7 times.. and not made it yet, They cant do it on their own.. they have to ride the coat tail of Madonna to get in.. sad sells outs, especially to Madonna. What a way to get into the RRHOF.

Posted by ~ St. Jimmy ~ on Wednesday, 12.31.08 @ 18:47pm


You may have a point, St. Jimmy... by the same token, Coven hasn't even been seriously considered. It becomes even more clear that Coven cannot do it on their own, either, and were they to make it in, it'd be as pathetic sell-outs.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 01.1.09 @ 09:26am


I personally thought the Stooges' "Madonna tribute" at the induction ceremonies was annoying...at best.

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.1.09 @ 10:19am


When I first saw what was going on, I thought.... What. The. F***!?

But let's face it, it beats actually having Madonna performing.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 01.1.09 @ 10:42am


I'll give that a big "AMEN, BROTHER!!!!"

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 01.1.09 @ 10:44am


The Stooges preformance of the 2 Madonna songs, Burning up and Ray of Light were..... whats the word I am thinking of.... I will just say interesting. She would not even come to her own induction unless the Stooges took the stage, the RRHOF couldnt miss out on MADONNA missing her induction could they? so the went with the queen of pops demands. I was looking up the Stooges albums in the top 100.. only 2.. 1969 and 2005/06... Same years as the OPENED for Madonna on some of her Re-invention tour dates.... hmmm started selling out then. Other than those 2 albums it looks like they were widely ignored, I will admit that the first 3 albums are good.. Raw Power is my fav...Come on Gimme Danger!

And as far as Coven.. well they would NEVER stoop to the Stooges level to get inducted or to get reconized... why sell out.. it makes you fake.

Posted by ~ St Jimmy ~ on Thursday, 01.1.09 @ 14:45pm


Simply put, St. Jimmy, your definition of "selling out" is laughable. The Stooges deserve induction, you even admit credibility of some of their stuff. There's a vast difference between marketing yourself smartly and selling out. And you could apply a definition of selling out to any group you've ever heard of.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 01.3.09 @ 16:14pm


R.I.P Ron Asheton

Posted by Steve on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 14:37pm


Ron Asheton, RIP

Posted by Keebord on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 14:26pm


I have lost all hope for this institution.

I am sorry Ron. The RnRHoF is not worth rolling over in your grave.



Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 13:25pm


How The Stooges could still not get into the Hall of Fame after seven nominations while Madonna gets in on her first try is beyond me.

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 16:46pm


Well, Iggy's obviously a fan of Madonna, so why not ask him? :) Madge looks to be a fan of his, as well.

Madonna is the closest female equivalent to an Elvis and The Beatles in term of cultural impact (thanks to what they did in their work), and just impact on music. Plus, she's made great records. it was a no-brainer that she'd be considered her first year of eligiblity; it was a bonus thatshe was voted in that very same year.

I'm not saying The Stooges shouldn't be in the HOF, but Madonna's imnpact and influence shouldn't be diminished because another act has struggled to get inducted.

Posted by JR on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 16:51pm


Ah well, I suppose that's true JR. I was just venting out my anger over The Stooges being snubbed this year again.

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 21:01pm


it's a travesty that The Stooges are once again denied induction.

if The Stooges don't personify and embody everything that is rock n roll then there is something wrong with this world.

their importance to rock n roll is beyond measure.

the voting commitee clearly doesn't have clue number one as to what rock n roll really is.

shame on you...

Posted by Scarlet Rowe on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 22:00pm


The Stooges have been denied enough. They deserved more then anyone on the list.

Posted by Jesse on Friday, 01.16.09 @ 15:53pm


Although deserving, as performers and early influences, it is unlikely the Stooges will ever get in for purely political reasons. Rock "historians" have created a very nice story about Punk being created in the mid-70's in New York and London as a rejection of what rock had become by then. They like this story because it is another example that everything cool and new comes from New York (and London).

To induct the Stooges is to admit that the roots of Punk started much earlier and, God forbid, possibly in Detroit! Since nothing cool can come from Detroit, the Stooges can't be cool and therefore can't be important. This is important stuff to people who see image as everything.

This is also why the MC5 have not been nominated again, even with their former manager as chair of the nominating committee. However, I suspect that Jon is likely keeping the Stooges alive in this process since the MC5 & Stooges were close in the late 60's.

This should not be a surprise to anyone since so many of the Hall's decisions are obviously based on 'what makes a good TV show' or someone's personal favorite (Wanda Jackson anyone?) and much less on who actually deserves to be here. The Stooges are not the first and won't be the last performers to be treated disrespectfully by this industry popularity contest.



Posted by RPB on Sunday, 01.18.09 @ 09:53am


I never like conspiracy theories because they always tend to favour the complex road, when in fact it' s much simpler. Unfortunately, if you're music isn't accessible, you'll have a hard time getting in. It's the same reason why it took so long for them to induct The Sex Pistols, The Velvet Underground, Black Sabbath... They have people like Fats Domino and Don & Phil Everly in the Voting Committee, artists from the fifties and early sixties, seventy-year-olds, grandparents. I have no idea if they would appreciate something like "Search & Destroy", or understand the importance of "No Fun", but I seriously doubt it. It's a miracle Metallica got in.

Posted by The_Claw on Sunday, 01.18.09 @ 11:28am


How's it goin', Claw??? With the Everly Bros., I could see them being a little more open minded because they really liked Nazareth's cover of their song "Love Hurts". Fats Domino could be a different story, though. I see your point, though. It's pretty much why I asked myself earlier exactly who is qualified to make these decisions.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 01.18.09 @ 11:44am


RPB -

You are so on the mark with this. It is why the whole thing about historians and Halls is so ridiculous. When they try to pass themselves off as know-it-all's it is foolish, but to then start codifying the whole deal and shaping the story to your own whims is pathetic.

I've never mentioned this on this site, but your comments have brought this one out. Most of my family are not baby boomers, but rather total 1950's people. They we're living the 50's when the boomers were just little kids, and the stories I get, told by working class inner city people (which they were) is jarringly different from the images conjured up (were talking stories of a mid-50's recession - 1955 if I remember correctly). Heck, Eddie Fisher is an icon in my home!

The most unreal stories I've heard concern Frankie Avalon. I've never once voted on Avalon on this site, because a part of me feels compelled to vote YES! I hear stories of an unknown Avalon sitting on the steps of South Phila. High School w/a guitar, singing to the girls, as opposed to the cleaned-up Bandstand crooner, and it presents a very diff. picture.

My only hope is that the history of the music can pull away from the Rolling Stone-it'll always be 67 forever mentality. Maybe in the future a younger generation will lauch an intense re-assessment of the past. Who knows.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 01.18.09 @ 18:01pm


That the Stooges have once again been passed over, in spite of the death of Ron Asheton, which might have brought out the sympathy vote, indicates their status as true originals. They are *still* ahead of their time, which is why their imitators and influencees have been inducted over them. This happens not just in commercial worlds but in academia, etc; the true innovators are rarely the beneficiaries of recognition or reward for their innovations even though everyone knows who they are. This Stooges thing has become a badge of honor. For the Stooges, not for the Hall of Fame.

Posted by hyperpoesia on Sunday, 01.18.09 @ 19:00pm




Cheesecrop
"The most unreal stories I've heard concern Frankie Avalon. I've never once voted on Avalon on this site, because a part of me feels compelled to vote YES! I hear stories of an unknown Avalon sitting on the steps of South Phila. High School w/a guitar, singing to the girls, as opposed to the cleaned-up Bandstand crooner, and it presents a very diff picture.

Hmmmm not sure what you are getting at ??? Are you trying to say you have to keep the look on and off stage..
I guess if I am a baseball player I need my CAP AND GLOVE WHERE EVER I GO..????????????
THIS IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN "SHOW BIZ>>

If I am in a Bateman movie.. Do I need to dress like Bateman off the stage,,?????. I must say some rockers seem to believe their own BS.. I hope you don't...
Enjoy the show..I don't like"dress up" but.......it is what it is ....is it not..?
A coat and tie seems real when performing it has some class especially 1959... or even 2012..
Avalon is a class rock act with talent...


Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 01.18.09 @ 19:08pm


UGH!!! I am so mad at the Rock Hall right now, why the heck did they shun the stooges again?!? I guess they'll probably get in next year, or the year after, and for sure before 2112. But... ahhhhhh! They are so darn good, Bobby Womack? Bobby? The Stooges should be in instead of him. The Stooges invented Punk before The Ramones, Before The Sex Pistols, Before The Clash. Those three bands are superb, true, they are probably better than the stooges. But, you can't snub their influence. The Stooges deserve to be in.

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 01.19.09 @ 17:37pm


mrxyz-

Sorry to be getting back so late on the Frankie Avalon comparison. What I was trying to get at is how he was sold to the public. His image is locked down by the rock historians even if he ever thought about changing it. It's a bad deal when the artist can't move due to the writers agenda.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.21.09 @ 05:59am


It's a bad deal when the artist can't move due to the writers agenda.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.21.09 @ 05:59am

I think I would rather be Frankie than the Stooges. Heck the Beatles wore leather jackets..Then they got smart and wore suits and sold zillions..in their day..Suits were in then. Heck if not for Frankie an Annette where would the great Dick Dale be..? He{FRANKIE} went from suits to surf.. lol
Surfs UP!

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 01.21.09 @ 09:43am


I'm only 17 and I think the Stooges should've been in the Hall a long time ago. I was hoping that they'd get it for 2009 but they were rejected AGAIN! For 2009, I'm good with Metallica and Jeff Beck but everyone else not so much. Little Anthony? PUL-EAS! They should've been there a long time ago with Bobby Womack. Run DMC? This is the ROCK N ROLL Hall of Fame, not the HIP HOP hall of fame. Come on, people. Without these guys, punk would not be what it is today. Also, I don't know when they casted the votes but I think it's so mean that by the time they get in, it'll be too long. Ron Asheton died a week before the inductees were annouced. COME ON!

Posted by Aaron on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 06:46am


"Run DMC? This is the ROCK N ROLL Hall of Fame, not the HIP HOP hall of fame."

Bullshit. You seem to agree with Bobby Womack's induction, while it's not the SOUL Hall of Fame. And with Little Anthony & The Imperials, but it's not the DOO WOP Hall of Fame. And it's not the PUNK Hall of Fame either. If punk is rock 'n' roll, and soul is, and doo wop is, than hip hop must also be some kind of rock 'n' roll. Maybe not your favorite kind, but that has nothing to do with it.

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 09:10am


How in pluperfect hell are The Stooges not in the Hall of Fame, when the Ramones, The Clash and Patti Smith are? (Or for that matter, effing U2, but I digress) I was astonished a few years ago, when I visited there and didn't see their name on the wall. Punk simply would not have happened without The Stooges, or for that matter the New York Dolls, who aren't in there either. Primal music that gets you in the gut and nether regions sung by a madman with legendary stage antics and a rocky mistake-ridden personal life. What exactly is more rock and roll than that? Sure, perhaps there are better musicians than The Stooges in the strictly technical sense, but this isn't the perfect pitch and skill at double necked guitar hall of fame. This isn't the by the notes music hall of fame, THIS IS THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME! And I defy you to say with a straight face that all the other musicians let in since 1994 embody the spirit of Rock and Roll more than Iggy Pop and the Stooges.

Posted by LP on Monday, 02.16.09 @ 14:31pm


The stooges are too influential not to get in, there's a reason jack white called Fun House the greatest rock album! I don' think its the greatest but its certainly one of them. The Stooges need to be in! Down on the street is a classic!

Posted by Aaron on Thursday, 03.26.09 @ 12:23pm


You know if Metallica can get in before the Stooges that's really a shame!!!

By the time Metallica formed the influence of the Stooges was pretty obvious.

...And let's not even mention Run DMC!

Posted by Rudy on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 18:24pm


You know if Metallica can get in before the Stooges that's really a shame!!!

By the time Metallica formed the influence of the Stooges was pretty obvious.

...And let's not even mention Run DMC!

Posted by Rudy on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 18:24pm
--------------------------------------------------
How is this a shame? If you didn't think Metallica was eligible in the first place, then it would be a shame. This is another case of "band A" should be in before "band B" just cause there older. I don't get that line of thinking at all.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 04.6.09 @ 05:38am


Cheese - you are right! That line of thinking does not work in many cases, but in some it does. The analogy of Stooges and Metallica doesn't work. But it does work when talking about Deep Purple and Metallica, or The Stooges and The Sex Pistols, at least in the minds of many. And you can see that when listening to James induction speech. The HoF has excluded way too many important bands and yet inducted bands who came after and were directly influenced by them. But this talking point has been beaten to death a thousand times here already. No need to rehash it. But as I see it, this HoF is empty until Deep Purple, Stooges, Alice Cooper, NY Dolls and the Runaways/Suzi Quatro are voted in. These bands were all at the forefront and helped create specific genres in Rock and Roll and/or in the case of the Suzi & the Runaways , ass kickin ladies who influenced all that followed.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 04.6.09 @ 09:27am


They're probably never going to get in. If they don't get nominated again this year, they're done.

Posted by Oehfa on Sunday, 06.14.09 @ 10:24am


Besides cronyism/politics, I've got a theory as to why the Stooges are having a hard time getting in. As long as there's another strong guitar-based rock band, especially with serious name recognition, the Stooges have gotten screwed. Look at the years they've been nominated at lost:

1997: their first nomination... not too many acts get in on their first nomination. This is mere first nomination failure. Nothing big here. Unless you *want* to consider CS&N as that role-filler.

1998: the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, and Santana, not to mention early rock guitar pioneer Gene Vincent. Stooges crap out.

1999-2003: Stooges not nominated

2004: ZZ Top on the ballot. Also on were fellow lose-outs Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sex Pistols, and Black Sabbath. If they can't get in, the Stooges sure won't.

2005: the Stooges are on the ballot. So is U2. 'Nuff said.

2006: Black Sabbath, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Sex Pistols all get in. Stooges don't.

2007: R.E.M. and Van Halen see to it the Stooges don't make it again.

After having 2008 off, they're on for 2009, only to get crushed by Metallica.

So, that's why I say that there may be an organized effort to keep the RHCP off the ballot this year. If they make it onto the ballot, the Stooges probably won't have a prayer.

Thoughts? Comments? Coffee? Tea? Peanuts?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 08.29.09 @ 03:30am


Thoughts? Comments? Coffee? Tea? Peanuts?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 08.29.09 @ 03:30am
--------------------------------------------------
I'll take you up on this.

Some of the bands you mention that are in direct competition w/the Stooges are getting in due to hype and/or anti-hype. Don't forget, both Sabbath & the Pistols made a stink about not wanting to be inducted, and this was bound to get the Rock Hall's goat.

Outside of that, many of the bands listed deserved to be in there as well. I think you already know how I feel about the "induct band A before band B" dilemma. I see no reason to hold VH, MEtallica, U2, REM, etc., back becuase the Stooges are not there yet. I agree that the Stooges should be in, & I would have put them over at least a few of those bands already inducted. Hopefully they will make it in.

Comments? Included here.
Thoughts? You'd make a great conspiracy theorist.
Coffee? Tea? Peanuts? - That would taste terrible together.

oh, btw... WHAT'S W/TRYING TO TURN THIS SITE INTO A STARBUCKS??!!!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 08.29.09 @ 04:34am


Cheese,

I'm not saying any of those bands should have been held back, but it seems to me that for diversity's sake, the voters are going to limit how many guitar bands they vote for on any given ballot, and if there's such a band on there with more clout or name recognition than the Stooges, the Stooges are going to get the short end of the stick.

For that reason, I think there may be an effort (or maybe not) by some NomCom members to keep the Peppers off this year to try and push forward the Stooges.

With Sabbath, the issue was the same as the Stooges pretty much. What they were saying was basically "Don't get our hopes up year after year only to dash them." And the Sex Pistols... well, they were just being the Sex Pistols.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 08.29.09 @ 06:23am


Most likely, the most deserving punk band that isn't in yet. It may not be next year, but they will be inducted sooner or later.

Posted by Dude Man on Sunday, 08.30.09 @ 13:50pm


"Thoughts? Comments? Coffee? Tea? Peanuts?" - Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Philip, how bout a Duff beer? (haha) And I say that cause yor rationale re The Stooges reminds me of Homer, who once lamented: "Ooh! They wanted somebody good!" (reason he didnt get the job)
Now I dont even know much about Iggy and The Stooges, but you are now saying they need a ballot that doesnt have anybody too good on it, so they dont have to compete too much, so they can get inducted. Hmmm? You say Sex Pistols and Black Sabbath got in and Iggy got left out (and thats not fair)??? C'mon Phil yor going soft! Have a nice glass of warm milk and a sugarcookie.

Posted by Telarock on Sunday, 08.30.09 @ 22:15pm


Telarock, I ain't going soft... you're confusing "good" with "name recognition", the latter of which I argued is what's keeping the Stooges out. But with only five acts being chosen a year, and the preference towards having a DIVERSITY of acts inducted each year (which is why you'll never see a ballot with nine prog acts on it, despite people thinking that so many such acts need to be inducted NOW), there is an element of competition on the ballot. It eventually comes down to name recognition, which is not always equivocal to being good. Who's got more name recognition: Black Sabbath or the Stooges?

Posted by Philip on Monday, 08.31.09 @ 13:07pm


The Stooges

Iggy Pop
Ron Asheton
Scott Asheton
James Williamson
Dave Alexander

Posted by Roy on Monday, 09.28.09 @ 03:57am


The Stooges

Over the past few years a number of candidates have made the ballot multiple times only to fall short when the vote rolled around. Of these Ralph Naders of the rock world none have received the support for their induction from the outraged music press as Iggy & The Stooges. One of punk's leading figures, Iggy brought a palpable sense of anarchy and violence to the forefront and the Stooges brand of rock was both controversial and entertaining. Each year they've been nominated (this is their seventh time on the ballot, their first coming back in 1998) they seemed like a fair bet to make it only to find themselves nosed out by the likes of Leonard Cohen, Percy Sledge, the Dave Clark Five and fellow Detroit native Bob Seger, all of whom it could be argued had negligible advantages over the Stooges. Their notorious, yet respected, image alone would seem to make them sure things from an institution that often instinctively gravitates towards notoriety. In fact, few eligible artists who've yet to be inducted have the type of iconic persona that Iggy possesses and that, along with the group's massive influence on punk rock, have led hordes of writers to champion their candidacy year after year, to no effect thus far. But perhaps to build on the groundswell of support he's received Iggy himself delivered Madonna's Hall of Fame induction speech a few years ago and that bit of statesmanship (or gamesmanship) may help sway a few reluctant voters one of these times.

Qualifications: 6 - Strong Case To Be Made

Posted by Roy on Friday, 10.2.09 @ 15:03pm


Glad to see that The Stooges are finally being honored (even if it is by some crappy organization.)

One question I have though, is why isn't Steve Mackay being inducted as a member? He's performed on two of their albums (one of which being the classic Fun House,) and even if he were not considered an official member back then, he certainly is now.

If Robert Trujillo can become a hall of famer after playing on just one album (which is debatable if it has really affected their legacy in any way) with Metallica, then why can't Steve Mackay, who DID play on an influential album, and is a current member as well?

Posted by Steve Z on Tuesday, 12.15.09 @ 13:16pm


Once again, congrats to The Stooges

About time

Posted by Keebord on Tuesday, 12.15.09 @ 16:59pm


The stooges have NO creativity

Posted by RHCP on Friday, 01.8.10 @ 11:06am


The stooges have NO creativity

Posted by RHCP on Friday, 01.8.10 @ 11:06am

I noticed you used the present tense, which might be true. However, the Stooges HAD a lot of creativity back in the day, I'm sure you won't argue with that :)

Posted by Keebord on Friday, 01.8.10 @ 15:17pm


http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_hall-of-fame-2010.html

FROM THE DIGITAL DREAM DOOR

The Stooges

It's hard to imagine it took the Stooges multiple tries before finally getting in, and then benefitting greatly from a weak ballot, because it's even harder to imagine that they will not be the headliners of the ceremonies, as they have the requisite iconic frontman in Iggy Pop, ample noteriety and the potential for a visual spectacle that will make for an entertaining telecast. In short, they are everything people like to point to as what rock 'n' roll is all about. This was their seventh appearance on the ballot and the concerted effort by the nominating committee to see them elected having now paid off will at least open a spot on next year's ballot for someone else. For the record this makes four punk bands inducted, which considering the lack of mainstream popularity punk had at the time, shows that the heavy promotion of the style as rock's saving grace in the seventies has paid of historically. A deserved selection in a year that needed it.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 01.16.10 @ 16:39pm


http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-stooges/bio/

2010 Rock Hall bio

THE STOOGES

INDUCTEES

Iggy Pop (vocals; born April 21, 1947),
Ron Asheton (guitar, bass; born July 17, 1948);
Scott Asheton (drums; born August 16, 1949),
James Williamson (guitar; born October 29, 1949),
Dave Alexander (bass; born June 3, 1947)

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 03.11.10 @ 09:49am


Dude they were inducted this year 2010.

Posted by Spider on Sunday, 08.1.10 @ 17:31pm


Artist.. Very nice :)

Posted by www.futurerocklegends.com on Friday, 06.3.11 @ 07:02am


RIP, Scott Asheton

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 03.16.14 @ 21:12pm


Rest in Peace Steve Mackay (saxophonist on their second album), 1949-2015

Posted by Joe on Sunday, 10.11.15 @ 13:17pm


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.