The White Stripes

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible in: 2024 (The 2025 Induction Ceremony)


Inducted into Rock Hall Projected in 2025 (ranked #123) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
White Blood Cells (2001)
Elephant (2003)
Icky Thump (2007)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Fell In Love With A Girl (2001)
Seven Nation Army (2003)
The Hardest Button to Button (2003)
Blue Orchid (2005)
Icky Thump (2007)

The White Stripes @ Wikipedia

The White Stripes Videos

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

Comments

110 comments so far (post your own)

Excelent use of only 2 muscicians. Evene though Meg White can't really drum, they remind me alot of They Might Be Giants. Cooky lyrics and a distinct sound. They will be in the RNR HOF. Who knows? Maybe with more albums, fans will rush them in quickly

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, 10.10.06 @ 19:04pm


The White Stripes are possibly the only band from the 00's that can be indentified NOW as a mortal lock for the Rock Hall.

Posted by c.w. on Monday, 11.20.06 @ 18:42pm


70s>>>>>>Led Zeppelin
80s>>>>>>>>>>>The Ramones
90s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nirvana
00s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The white stripes


;)

Posted by Victor Lopez on Saturday, 12.2.06 @ 09:50am


YESSSS. In the midst of the "rap age", they're an honestly RAW, minimalist blues/punk/indie duo... Jack and Meg White give off more power and energy than anyone ever has before.

Jack is an excellent guitar player (no, hear me out -- listen to the solo on "Ball and Biscuit." He's giving Clapton and Page a run for their money.) Meg is a different type of drummer - more Mo Tucker than Keith Moon. While she gets dismissed as a "bad" drummer, anything more would wreck the Stripes' aesthetic. :\

A distinct sound and style, catchy songs, highly artistic videos, infectious riffs, and interesting lyrics...

They've got time yet to be influential, really.

Posted by bleedin' quadrophenic on Thursday, 01.4.07 @ 13:34pm


Boring revisions of the staple garage rock sound fo not make for a good band, and I can think of plenty of post-2000 bands more deserving of acclaim than them.

Posted by William on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 22:49pm


At this moment...No. Call me back in 10 years and I may give you guys a better answer bout them.

Posted by maplejet on Tuesday, 02.27.07 @ 11:18am


Like them or not - and The White Stripes are definitely a polarizing band - The Stripes will be almost certainly be in the Hall. Why? Because they have that gritty, "authentic" rock sound critics and connoisseurs love. They have the perfect sound, perfect image, perfect vibe for a Hall induction. The Hall likes the rough, outsider types, which explains why The Sex Pistols are inducted and ABBA is not.

Besides, there really aren't any other bands of their era that would be worthy of induction in their place. They'll get in.

Posted by Andrew on Tuesday, 03.6.07 @ 21:45pm


Rolling Stone magazine recently named Jack as the 18th best guitar player EVER. Add that to bleedin' quadrophenic's comment and then they're solidified.

Posted by Eric on Saturday, 03.24.07 @ 10:07am


The White Stripes are very revolutionary, with none of their songs sounding generic at all. It's a shame they're not more popular than they are, because of all the second rate rock bands drowning out their original sounds.

Posted by King Wiley on Wednesday, 04.25.07 @ 17:19pm


Will be as influential as the Cure. And "Icky Thump" going Top 40 helps, too.

Posted by Ryan Gibbs on Saturday, 05.19.07 @ 13:58pm


hmmm. Right now...no.

We'll see.

Posted by luke on Thursday, 05.31.07 @ 08:46am


i would really have to say no at the moment, they are a very exceptional band but i dont think they are on a similar scale to the rest of the hall of fame, their sound is good but i personally think its nothing special.

Posted by Will on Sunday, 06.3.07 @ 14:48pm


A definate No. They're very popular, have great sales numbers and catchy hooks. So have many, many other bands in the past 20 years.

Posted by Nicky on Thursday, 07.12.07 @ 09:40am


Ive seen that William guy all over the place. This guy doesnt like anyone does he?
As for The White Stripes, I caught em the other day, belting out songs such as little ghost inside madison square garden. And what I heard was the sound of some future hall of famers.

Posted by Roj on Sunday, 07.29.07 @ 17:01pm


No, I hate everything.

But in case you're interested, Black Keys > White Stripes.

Posted by William on Sunday, 07.29.07 @ 19:01pm


If you hate everything, then why do bother voting at all?

Posted by ---------- on Tuesday, 07.31.07 @ 05:39am


People who don't get obvious sarcasm...

Posted by William on Tuesday, 07.31.07 @ 17:45pm


I dont think it is sarcasm. You really dont seem to like anyone except maybe black keys. Oh by the way, The White Stripes slaughter Black Keys

Posted by Roj on Thursday, 08.2.07 @ 08:16am


Yes, I hate everyone except the Black Keys.

And King Crimson.

And the Melvins.

And Voivod.

Maybe a couple hundred others, but mostly I hate everything.

Posted by William on Thursday, 08.2.07 @ 10:07am


haha i knew it William. ANd I have king crimsons first album... very dissapointing

Posted by Roj on Thursday, 08.2.07 @ 21:42pm


Am I supposed to be offended that Roj doesn't like King Crimson or that you find the concept of employment funny, Anon?

Supposing for a second that Roj were winning this little exchange, it's very lame of you to try to co-opt his success. Why not hone your own argumentative skills instead of relying on others, eh?

Posted by William on Friday, 08.3.07 @ 00:07am


Ya know, being in the hall of fame doesn't require the approval of William to get in. Especially since William doesn't know shit.

But on the subject of The White Stripes, don't judge on wheather you like em or not. Base it on things that matter. I don't see anyone else making music like The White Stripes and getting away with it, making the charts and nearly selling out MSG. Williams bullshit isn't even enough to sell out the Garden.

Posted by Roj on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 04:52am


And I also forgot that they sold millions of albums world wide. I don't think King Crimson did that or the black keys, probably even combined.

William, instead of critiqing bad bands you dont want in, why dont you just support bands you do want in. Unless its like Panic! At The Disco or something. Those guys you should definatly critique.

Posted by Roj on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 05:00am


"And I also forgot that they sold millions of albums world wide."

So Itake it you also endorse ColorMe Badd's induction campaign. Hey, they sold a lot of recordsandthat's what matters M I RITE?


I like the Stripes a lot, but they seem to have a weakness in that each album seems to have more than its share of obvious filler. The singles are almost always knockouts, but every other track seems designed with the skip button in mind.

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 11:11am


Bingo. Since I don't consider the number of albums bought or shows attended important, primarily because they have nothing to do with musical influence or innovation, I'll judge something based on its musical qualities, and as far as retro garage rock outfits go, there are others doing as well or better and more consistently, relying more on albums and less on singles. Still, I wouldn't vote to let in either the Stripes or the Keys because neither is particularly innovative, although they might be very good at what they do.

Do I care if KC sold a lot of records? Not really. I think laying the groudwork for 40 years of progressive music is a slightly more impressive feat than filling an amphitheater with a few thousand suburbanites.

Posted by William on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 12:08pm





"William, instead of critiqing bad bands...why dont you just support bands you do want in?" - Roj

Here, here, Roj. This site would be immeasurably more interesting if we would limit our thoughts to adoring fanboy pats on the back; are we barbarians? Positive affirmations only please, and polite silence if you have a differing view!
That's a snashing idea.

"Ya know, being in the hall of fame doesn't require the approval of William..." - Roj

Actually, it does. There's a small paragraph in the Rock by-laws that reads: "All inductions must be cleared through and endorsed by William." Little known fact.
Furthermore, the manifesto states that,".. if the poster known as 'Anon' supports any induction, a fact finding committee shall promptly be formed to ascertain the problem with said candidate."

"I'll judge something based on its musical qualities.." - William

Was there ever a more perilously subjective premise? Art, like humor and religion is almost hopelessly personal, it seems to me.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 16:20pm


Remember, the White Stripes are a two-member group who are able to sell out huge arenas as a Big Rock Band. It's incredible how much they have been able to get out of their self-imposed limitations over the years.

There aren't many 2-piece bands in the Hall, are there? I can't even think of very many contemporaries either -- The Black Keys, DFA 1979. Anyone else?

Posted by c.w. on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 18:21pm


Sonny and Cher, man..
and then there was Los del Rio - the legendary octogenarian duo behind "The Macarena".
Tears For Fears, Eurythmics, Pet Shop Boys, Timbuk 3, Loggins and Messina, Nelson (twins, no less!), Right Said Fred; so many, so many....

Isn't Gnarls Barkley a duo?

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 18:55pm


Gnarls is essentially Danger Mouse and Cee-Lo, but they tour with a full backing band (like most of the others you mentioned too). Not so with the White Stripes. They are able to reproduce their full sound in a live setting with just good old Jack and Meg.

Posted by c.w. on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 19:33pm


Much respect for The White Stripes; I am a fan.
I was being very sarcastic about almost all of the "examples" I gave.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 21:26pm


What is that book, "Wherever I go, there I am" - something like that. They should write a new one, where ever there is sarcastic critiques, there goes the ass hole William :-) Dude, is it just me, or are you just far superior to everyone?

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 21:52pm


Oh, and btw you write that KC influenced so many years of progressive rock "as if" it had something to do with you - you know as if you derive some sort of self-worth from writing that. In social psychology, they call that "basking in reflected glory." Your BIRG'ING is so obvious.

Please you and Kit, leave these posts already, and go make your own mark on life - don't turn into some snobby "intellectual", armchair philopsohers. Irrespective of your dislike for me, you still extist as a I describe...."so get out there and rock and roll the bones."

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 21:59pm


"Oh, and btw you write that KC influenced so many years of progressive rock "as if" it had something to do with you - you know as if you derive some sort of self-worth from writing that."

...what? Where the hell are you getting that from?

And then you accuse us of being armchair philosophers? Better than playing armchair therapist while going out of your way to not talk music on a music discussion site, ya weirdo.

Posted by Kit on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 22:13pm


Struck a nerve?

"...what? Where the hell are you getting that from?"

Hey dumb ass, clean the glasses off, it was written by your bud, Bill, a few posts up:

"Do I care if KC sold a lot of records? Not really. I think laying the groudwork for 40 years of progressive music is a slightly more impressive feat than filling an amphitheater with a few thousand suburbanites"

BTW, there is no charge for the advice :-)

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 22:17pm


"Oh, and btw you write that KC influenced so many years of progressive rock "as if" it had something to do with you - you know as if you derive some sort of self-worth from writing that. In social psychology, they call that "basking in reflected glory." Your BIRG'ING is so obvious."-Nonny

Maybe I'm Robert Fripp in disguise, or maybe I'm just citing their worth to counter Roj's obvious (and very weak) attempt to "get me" by saying he didn't like their first album. Remember, I casually mentioned KC when asked if I, in fact, hated all bands (and I don't; in fact, I rarely waste hate on something that doesn't especially deserve it). Roj was the one who tried to make it personal, boi. In fact, you're doing that right now.

Hypocrisy's funny that way.

Posted by William on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 23:18pm


"Bingo. Since I don't consider the number of albums bought or shows attended important, primarily because they have nothing to do with musical influence or innovation, I'll judge something based on its musical qualities, and as far as retro garage rock outfits go, there are others doing as well or better and more consistently, relying more on albums and less on singles. Still, I wouldn't vote to let in either the Stripes or the Keys because neither is particularly innovative, although they might be very good at what they do.

Do I care if KC sold a lot of records? Not really. I think laying the groudwork for 40 years of progressive music is a slightly more impressive feat than filling an amphitheater with a few thousand suburbanites." -William's post in full

I don't see any arrogance, not 1 hint of narcissistic personality disorder.

The only problem is he misspelled the word groundwork.

:-)

Posted by SG on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 23:19pm


I saw a Simpson's episode once where it was discoverd that Homer had a crayon shoved into his brain at a young age and this explained his lifelong dimwittedness/bufoonery.

Are you sure that lost Burnt Orange ended up between the couch cushions, Nonny?

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 08.19.07 @ 23:59pm


fOR ONLY TWO PEOPLE THE WHITE STRIPES ARE EXTREMLY GOOD!

Posted by SaveTHEanimals on Sunday, 09.16.07 @ 13:11pm


"fOR ONLY TWO PEOPLE THE WHITE STRIPES ARE EXTREMLY GOOD!"

DFA 1979, the go! team, the chemical brothers, NIN, Prince and many others all work with 2 or less people, and the music tends to be far better

Posted by liam on Sunday, 10.21.07 @ 11:14am


"UNGHHHHH" - william.

snorkle, albequerque; i can do it too.

Posted by b on Saturday, 11.3.07 @ 11:15am


these guys suck.... I think that the person which decides this should listen first to the music of these artists ad then make a choice... these guys only have 1 song most people like and have 67% of induction while a lot of people listen to about 10 or more of oother artists like john maye but the have 6% chance... I think you should see the music to begin with and you tell yourself which is the better artist in your opinion

Posted by gabrman on Friday, 05.2.08 @ 21:31pm


get a f u c k i n g bassist

Posted by gabrman on Friday, 05.2.08 @ 21:32pm


White Stripes Suck!!

Posted by Tobias Riepre on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 14:39pm


00's locks: Radiohead, White Stripes, Coldplay. These three artists will get in, not if... will. Everyone else in this decade, well, we'll have to see.... but those three without a doubt.

Posted by Calzone on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 11:49am


I say that it's a definate yes. You have to look at The White Stripes and ask yourself the question, what have they done for rock music?

They completely changed the direction popular music was going in general and made everybody appreciate good music again. Think about it, in the early 2000's we had Britney Spears, N'Sync, and some crappy gangsta being shoved down our throats. Then "Fell In Love With A Girl" slaped us across the face and "Seven Nation Army" kicked us in the nuts and paved the way for the other garage revival (and in my opinion post-punk revival) bands.

Also when people look back at "White Blood Cells" and at "Elephant" and maybe some of there other albums they will just as jaw dropping as today. The White Stripes make music that will definately beat the test of time.

Posted by bobo on Sunday, 08.24.08 @ 02:42am


WOW. Where do I start with these guys? A great, unique style, awesome guitarist, catchy songs, almost everything is great about them. Easily one of the best modern bands.

Posted by Joey on Tuesday, 08.26.08 @ 21:24pm


Not sure about the White Stripes but Jack White for certain will be.

Posted by PerryComa on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 22:44pm


i say no what have they done that makes them good enough to be in the hof im sick of crapy bands geting into the rock hall and worst is its the rock and roll hall of fame so why the hell is disco rap and all the other non rock geting in should just change it to the music hall of fame but as the name is rock and roll hof keep all non rock out.

Posted by alan on Tuesday, 09.23.08 @ 08:05am


"DFA 1979, the go! team, the , NIN, Prince and many others all work with 2 or less people, and the music tends to be far better"

Liam, Maybee if You Went over your NIN & Chemical Brothers CD's, You Would Realise That Most of That Crap is Sampled. Dude, You Got A Negitive Opinion For Everything! Do You Even Listen To The Words, Or Do You Just Wait For The Guitar Solos?

Posted by Tyson on Tuesday, 12.23.08 @ 10:02am


seems like they're not here anymore, they're not even influential or innovative....sorry

Posted by akeem on Tuesday, 12.30.08 @ 17:56pm


White Stripes definetaly deserve to get in. Jack White is no-doubt one of the most creative music geniuses of all time. And a great guitarist.

Posted by Boo-Boo on Tuesday, 02.24.09 @ 18:28pm


the white stripes should definately should get inducted jack white is the number 1 guitar player of the new millineum and one of the most important bands of the 2000's

Posted by kurt on Tuesday, 03.10.09 @ 18:01pm


kurt...saying Jack White is the "Number 1 guitarist of the new millenium" is a bit of a stretch. He's a good player, but Number One...????

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 03.10.09 @ 18:05pm


I'm not sure they will get in right away as of right now. Now give me one more good album like Elephant or White Blood Cells, and that is a lock for sure.

Posted by Ueven on Sunday, 03.22.09 @ 08:28am


sick there a two man/woman band whoever says that meg sucks well f@#k you and yeah they will make into the hall

Posted by chris diaz on Sunday, 03.29.09 @ 13:12pm


The White Stripes are one of the best groups ive herd in a long time. They deserve the Hall of Fame.

Posted by Joe on Saturday, 10.10.09 @ 13:57pm


They are probably the last band to WANT TO BE IN THE HALL OF FAME, which means they are a shoe in!

Posted by Simplethe Best on Tuesday, 10.20.09 @ 01:01am


1. NO band sounds like the White Stripes
2. NO guitarist sounds like Jack White
3. NO lead singer sounds like Jack White

Add that to the fact that Rolling Stone and the Hall love political, liberal lyrics, they are as much a lock now as, say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers in my opinion (of course, RHCP was snubbed this year, but is there anyone willing to argue that they won't get in next year or so???

Posted by Chris on Monday, 01.11.10 @ 14:24pm


"1. NO band sounds like the White Stripes
2. NO guitarist sounds like Jack White
3. NO lead singer sounds like Jack White" - Chris

Wow, there are so many things wrong with that I'm not even going to elaborate

Posted by Keebord on Monday, 01.11.10 @ 18:46pm


Decent but kinda meh in my opinion! They do have knockout killer singles though (Seven Nation Army) but they kinda just disappeared from the map... And NOT before inducting bands like Slayer, Megadeth, Alice In Chains, NIN, Ministry, Guns N Roses, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, System of a Down, Diamond Head and etc...

Posted by Antonio on Sunday, 03.7.10 @ 03:42am


Also do not forget the likes of Nirvana, Jane's Addiction, Fear Factory, and the like BEFORE putting the White Stripes forward...

Posted by Antonio on Sunday, 03.7.10 @ 03:44am


As do the Smashing Pumpkins (I'm pissed I did not mention them in my first two posts)...

Posted by Antonio on Sunday, 03.7.10 @ 03:58am


they are one of the most original acts of all time and one of the only acts of this generation that deserve to be in the rock and roll hall of fame along with coldplay , eminem , green day , radiohead , beck , and the foo fighters

Posted by tron on Monday, 04.26.10 @ 17:22pm


i forgot about outkast

Posted by tron on Monday, 04.26.10 @ 17:23pm


Coldplay deffinitely don't deserve the HOF, neither do System of a Down or Outkast (maybe outkast in a few years after induction but not for awhile)

Posted by Alex on Monday, 05.3.10 @ 17:11pm


As of now probably not, but time will tell. They're off to a great start, I'll tell you that.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 08.3.10 @ 20:16pm


i'll say

60s>>>Beatles
70s>>>>>>Led Zeppelin
80s>>>>>>>>>>>The Ramones
90s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nirvana
00s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The White Stripes

This is the best i've heard in the last 15 years. Jack White is genius. Todays music just plain sucks. No originality at all. Everything I hear sounds like crap! Anyone who doesn't like the White Strips, plain doesn’t know what they are talking about period. I think – hope everyone will catch on, but with the pathetic state of today’s music who knows, it’s really quite sad what some call music.

Posted by Mosejas on Tuesday, 08.17.10 @ 14:56pm


i'll say

60s>>>Beatles
70s>>>>>>Led Zeppelin
80s>>>>>>>>>>>The Ramones
90s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nirvana
00s>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The White Stripes

This is the best i've heard in the last 15 years. Jack White is genius. Todays music just plain sucks. No originality at all. Everything I hear sounds like crap! Anyone who doesn't like the White Strips, plain doesn’t know what they are talking about period. I think – hope everyone will catch on, but with the pathetic state of today’s music who knows, it’s really quite sad what some call music.

Posted by Mosejas on Tuesday, 08.17.10 @ 14:56pm


Where the hell did you get that? The Ramones made their most significant music in the late 70's.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 12.22.10 @ 09:51am


The White Stripes are an amazing band, especially for only two members.

They should be in.

And yes, whoever brung up The Ramones, what the hell were you thinking? I'm thinking 1970's.

Posted by Brittany on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 08:12am


Yeah, The Ramones would be 70's if anything.. 80's: New Order, Van Halen, Metallica, Joy Division, Iron Maiden... take your pick.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 16:47pm


Not sorry to see that they broke up.

This might be the most overrated band of the past 20 years. Well, aside from Radiohead anyway.

The reason why all their songs are so short is that Meg simply isn't capable of staying in time for 3 minutes without screwing up.

They had one hell of a marketing push, though.

Posted by Jack on Friday, 02.4.11 @ 10:13am


"This might be the most overrated band of the past 20 years. Well, aside from Radiohead anyway."

I have names who might be more overrated:

Red Hot Chili Peppers (<Faith No More and Gang of Four)

Green Day

Coldplay

Madonna

My Bloody Valentine (I'm setting myself up for punishment here, but I'll take it)

Weezer

Beyonce

I respect these names, but they just sometimes do a lot for me. Also:

Oasis (who I love, but I'm not sure if they rank as highly as some of my fellow countrymen like to think)

Nirvana (who I also love, but I just prefer Soundgarden; their impact has also been overrated sometimes)

Pearl Jam (see Nirvana; I also prefer Alice in Chains)

Primal Scream, "Screamadelica" (Good, but not as great as it's sometimes rated); I know I'm breaking the rules by picking an album, but who cares?

Elastica, self-titled (see Screamadelica)

I could try and do an underrated in the last 20 years if you like

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 05:56am


Sam, I decided to take you up on your proposition regarding the nominees for most overrated of the past 20 years:

Red Hot Chilli Peppers: This is an interesting case. As far as innovation is concerned, I'm not convinced they are any more important than similar bands like say Faith No More or Fishbone or Gang of Four. They're definitely the most popular of these in the mainstream and if you compare all this to the definition of overrated "(people) have a higher opinion of someone or something than is deserved;" then yeah, I'd say they're overrated but it's the "deserved" part of the overrated definition that is too subjective to give a detailed analysis of exactly how overrated RHCP are.

Green Day: Curiously, I'm wondering where you're getting this from Sam as the only praise I normally see these guys get is from their fans (which doesn't count as fans of any act will give that act praise). In fact, from my personal experience I've heard people give Green Day more contempt than praise (their fans aside).

Coldplay: Yes, I'd say they fit the definition of overrated quite nicely as they have a large amount of popularity and little to no innovation (any long term influence is still in its early stages so it's hard to judge their impact at this point).

Madonna: Now this is controversial! The bizarre thing about Madonna is that how important you think she is seems to really depend on whether you are a fan or not. Fans of hers will call her one of the more (some say the most) culturally important artists of the last quarter century while those who aren't fans refer to her (when they're being nice) as an almost literal prostitute who was all blow and no show, all media fabrication and spectacle and little substance who is single handedly responsible for all the untalented, trashy, lip-sync happy copycats around today (see the Britney Spears Crowd, aka KeSha, etc). So yeah, basically how you feel about her depends on whether you're a fan or not.

My Bloody Valentine: I'm guessing this might have something to do with what side of the pond you're on? I wouldn't call them overrated but it could just be me, who knows.

Weezer: Really tough. Some use a certain type of logic to claim they've been influential, others use that exact same logic to prove they weren't. Innovative? Not exactly. Impact? Well Make Believe become a commercial popularity hit but quality-wise (yeah I know, I'm getting into dangerously subjective territory here) it was their low-point. Some people hear about Weezer and yawn, some say they like them. Boring? Maybe (again, dangerous territory), overrated? I don't think so.

Beyonce: Overrated? Yes, but that probably has more to do with the fact she found a niche that there was high demand for and milked the living daylights out of it more so than any talent she may or may not have.

Oasis: This definitely depends on what side of the pond you're on. Personally, I wouldn't call them overrated, Hall worthy, yes (just take a look at their influence) but overrated, no.

Nirvana: Now here's a band with some overblown accomplishments. Some go about and say stuff like "Nirvana turned music on its head in the early 90s and had a direct impact
on everything that goes on today." Personally, I think people who say stuff like this really bought the whole campaign so-to-speak and really have no idea what they're talking about (if they don't back it up). I'm not trying to downplay Nirvana here, yes they were probably the most important band of the 90s but they didn't single-handedly jump out of nowhere (without any sort of direct influence) and make the magnetic poles change position either. They were among the bands that helped change the music landscape in the 90s and yes Kurt Cobain killing himself did help create the drama that still surrounds them today (the media disgustingly enough loves this sort of thing, see Freddie Mercury's death for example). So in summary, important? yes, very much so. Overrated? Yes.

Pearl Jam: Wow, I'm going to have to summarize what I said about Nirvana here as well. Important? Yes. Overrated? Yes. (Because contrary to popular belief it IS possible to be important and still be overrated, in other words to have the degree of your importance overblown/receive more credit than you might deserve).

Primal Scream: I would disqualify them simply on the basis of lack of Hollywood hype that pretty much all of the above have (apart from maybe My Bloody Valentine).

Elastica: See Primal Scream.


And yes Sam, I'd love to see the underrated list.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 08:58am


Tahvo, you're post made me think, if the other 90's alternative rock bands like soundgarden or alice in chains etc never existed, just how much impact would nirvana have?

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 11:42am


That's a tough one GFW and the best I can do is only speculate. I'm guessing some of the so-called "post-grunge" subgenre of alternative rock would still infest itself though maybe not to the same extent. There would still be some Nirvana rip-off bands and some watered down Nirvana rip-off bands who would aim for more radio-friendly, "safe," generic and commercially oriented sound that would basically take away the so-called "edge" of grunge in favor of conventional type dreck (see the post-grunge bandwagon of Creed, Staind, Puddle of Mudd, Seether, Three Days Grace and Nickelback). Normally, I'm not one to write off myself as disliking an entire subgenre but post-grunge is almost entirely unredeemable for me (I guess Foo Fighters are acceptable, just not my thing).

Anyways, this is turning into more of me ranting about post-grunge than anything else, so let me get back on track. Basically, their influence, whether direct or not would still finds its way into the watered down copycats of post-grunge or filter down into other alternative rock circles. How directly it would have influenced the last decade though remains to be seen. It should be interesting to see how people will view a band like Nirvana 20 years from now, for example. Right now though, people like those at Rolling Stone Magazine and the RRHOF are eating up any publicity they can get from Nirvana (see their placement on RS' endless and pointless lists, etc) and they'll get in first ballot into the RRHOF. What's also interesting though, is how people will view an institution like the RRHOF in even say, 10 years.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 13:04pm


Personally, I think Nirvana would actually have more influence had the other "alternative" bands not been around at the time. If anything, it would have made them stand out all the more.

Don't forget, as late as 1992-1993, you still had acts like Poison & Warrant releasing albums on a large commercial scale. Heck, I remember Skid Row releasing an album in 1995. Imagine how Nirvana's sound would have stood out from everyone had metal still kept it's place on the charts!

Hands down they would have been the most instatly recognizable act out there.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 13:27pm


What's interesting though is even if Alice in Chains or Soundgarden hadn't existed, there would still no doubt have been bands with the same influences as them (there would still be bands around influenced by Sonic Youth, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, etc, not just Nirvana). The question then is if Nirvana would have been the primary torch-bearer so to speak who would have been as explosive as say the Beatles circa 1963. Like the Beatles, there would have emerged a massive wave of peers who emulated them which would obviously make Nirvana a major significance as Cheesecrop noted.

It's all very probable and just as Nirvana and grunge would help sweep aside the Van Halen emulating leftovers (OK maybe I'm being a bit harsh on bands like Poison) we would see the leftovers of post-grunge be swept aside by a similar act (which is yet to come). Then again, post-grunge is only a minor footnote of the current musical landscape (unlike hair metal at its peak) so that reasoning is a bit flawed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to dismiss hair metal as it was sleazy and good in an obnoxious way but it wasn't exactly innovative (at least most of it, I won't pretend to oversimplify an entire style of music, that would be ignorant). Still though, the only representative from that era who I would see making a case for the RRHOF is Def Leppard.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:03pm


I'll add that it's curious to see that a band like Nirvana at this point looks like a first ballot lock whereas their influences (who are currently eligible) have been snubbed (At this point Sonic Youth hasn't even been considered). Kind of reminds me of the same type of logic the Hall has used in past to induct a band like the Sex Pistols before the Stooges, MC5 or even the New York Dolls.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:09pm


Let me clarify myself a bit, I'm not saying there should be any sort of sequential waiting line for the RRHOF based on who influenced who, just trying to analyze some things and get some discussion going

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:11pm


I'm really interested to see how post-grunge will be viewed by the Hall when it's time comes. Acts like Stone Temple Pilots and Collective Soul are the only names that are still remembered today, but both weren't too high on critic's list so that might hurt them. Those would be the only ones (except maybe Bush) that I think would be good representatives, but if Nickelback manages (in spite of being a steaming pile musically) to stay popular for the next decade its possible they could be nominated at some point, especially considering how Bon Jovi was. (So Chad Kroger might have to kiss Jann's ass at some point.) Do I think they'll skip over an entire genre? No, even though post-grunge at it's peak wasn't as big as hair metal at it's peak, it still has been the solid mainstream of rock and roll for 19 years (if we include STP) and in terms of longevity its probably too big to ignore. My money is on STP getting inducted with Collective Soul and Nickelback having outside chances.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:12pm


"Let me clarify myself a bit, I'm not saying there should be any sort of sequential waiting line for the RRHOF based on who influenced who, just trying to analyze some things and get some discussion going"

At this point I've stopped caring about order, now it's just about getting snubs outta the way. Thats why I have no problem with Genesis or the potential of Yes getting in before King Crimson, even though logically KC should be in first.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:14pm


Also, the hall didn't skip over Hair Metal/Pop Metal if you count Van Halen.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:15pm


"At this point I've stopped caring about order" - Jim

Yeah, you and me both. They've messed it up bad enough, now it's just about getting those deserving in.

"Also, the hall didn't skip over Hair Metal/Pop Metal if you count Van Halen." - Jim

I've always thought of Van Halen more as a hard rock band who kickstarted hair metal due to their enormous influence on the genre but I guess seeing them as the first hair metal band is totally appropriate as well, so in this manner you're right (maybe the Hall will use this reasoning to keep out Def Leppard?)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:23pm


"even though post-grunge at it's peak wasn't as big as hair metal at it's peak, it still has been the solid mainstream of rock and roll for 19 years (if we include STP) and in terms of longevity its probably too big to ignore"

I agree that STP probably have the best credentials of the post-grunge bands.

"My money is on STP getting inducted with Collective Soul and Nickelback having outside chances."

I really doubt they would even consider Nickelback (if they continue doing what they're doing which seems inevitable). I wouldn't be too surprised if Nickelback would be viewed as the Poison (no pun intended) of post-grunge (albeit without being sleazy in a fun way, like Poison).

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 14:35pm


"I've always thought of Van Halen more as a hard rock band who kickstarted hair metal due to their enormous influence on the genre but I guess seeing them as the first hair metal band is totally appropriate as well, so in this manner you're right (maybe the Hall will use this reasoning to keep out Def Leppard?)"

I agree with what you said, but I was trying to think of the Hall's perspective here. Van Halen, to me, was no more hair metal than KISS or Aerosmith, two other acts who were a large influence on that scene, but since Dave and Eddie had long hair and the former wore spandex, perception became reality. I'd say Def Leppard and Motley Crue have their place in the hall, but I know GNR are getting in quick and due to their massive success and friends in high places Bon Jovi will get in at some point, so I think that style will be repped pretty well when all the dinosaurs step down from their positions.



"I really doubt they would even consider Nickelback (if they continue doing what they're doing which seems inevitable). I wouldn't be too surprised if Nickelback would be viewed as the Poison (no pun intended) of post-grunge (albeit without being sleazy in a fun way, like Poison)."

LOL I could've sworn I made the exact comparison on Nickelback's page. This next decade will be telling, if they fade out this decade then the comparison will be correct, but if they manage to stay successful it's possible they could be viewed in the same way that Bon Jovi is now. But this might also require some friends in high places. With that being said, Nickelback suck musically and the only way I'd ever consider them worthy is if post-grunge continues it's winning streak this decade and they wind up still being huge.

But back on topic, I have no problem with the White Stripes, even though I think the Indie Rock scene is kinda overrated.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 20:37pm


"Kind of reminds me of the same type of logic the Hall has used in past to induct a band like the Sex Pistols before the Stooges, MC5 or even the New York Dolls."


I'll defend the Nominating Committee for a sec and point out that MC5 and the Dolls were nominated, so at least they have supporters and were given a chance. Their failures to get in were most likely the voting comittee being backwards idiots as usual and picked bland, vanilla groups over the true HOFers. However, it is the Nominating Comittees fault for not nomiating them since. Quire a few times the Committee makes the right choice only to have it foiled by the voting committee, they're a huge part of the problem. (See Kraftwerk, War, Beastie Boys, KISS)

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 02.13.11 @ 22:45pm


"But back on topic, I have no problem with the White Stripes, even though I think the Indie Rock scene is kinda overrated."


I think I know where you're coming from with the comment on the Indie scene, as for the White Stripes though, I'm really interested to see if they did in fact call it quits permanently as it's happened many times before only for the artist to come back a few years later with a studio album or two. Even if this happens though, it's most likely their most important work will be what has already been produced. I'm really cautious about making a direct yes or no though as I still think it's a little early to tell. I'm leaning "yes" though but the 2025 ceremony is a long way away and will see what happens.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Monday, 02.14.11 @ 03:23am


"Green Day: Curiously, I'm wondering where you're getting this from Sam as the only praise I normally see these guys get is from their fans (which doesn't count as fans of any act will give that act praise). In fact, from my personal experience I've heard people give Green Day more contempt than praise (their fans aside)."

I don't hate them, they just don't do a whole lot for them. I think someone's going to flame me for this one eventually, so I'm considering a retraction.

"Madonna: Now this is controversial! The bizarre thing about Madonna is that how important you think she is seems to really depend on whether you are a fan or not. Fans of hers will call her one of the more (some say the most) culturally important artists of the last quarter century while those who aren't fans refer to her (when they're being nice) as an almost literal prostitute who was all blow and no show, all media fabrication and spectacle and little substance who is single handedly responsible for all the untalented, trashy, lip-sync happy copycats around today (see the Britney Spears Crowd, aka KeSha, etc). So yeah, basically how you feel about her depends on whether you're a fan or not."

I prefer George Michael. I do think she deserved induction, I'm just not a huge fan. Prince is the man for me.

"My Bloody Valentine: I'm guessing this might have something to do with what side of the pond you're on? I wouldn't call them overrated but it could just be me, who knows."

Psychocandy by The Jesus & Mary Chain is better than Loveless and was also a major influence on them, and even that's an album I'm not wild about. I also prefer Siamese Dream, even if it was influenced by Loveless.

"Weezer: Really tough. Some use a certain type of logic to claim they've been influential, others use that exact same logic to prove they weren't. Innovative? Not exactly. Impact? Well Make Believe become a commercial popularity hit but quality-wise (yeah I know, I'm getting into dangerously subjective territory here) it was their low-point. Some people hear about Weezer and yawn, some say they like them. Boring? Maybe (again, dangerous territory), overrated? I don't think so."

Again, it's just a thing of them not doing a lot for me.

"Beyonce: Overrated? Yes, but that probably has more to do with the fact she found a niche that there was high demand for and milked the living daylights out of it more so than any talent she may or may not have."

Yeah. I think she's talented, but otherwise...

"Oasis: This definitely depends on what side of the pond you're on. Personally, I wouldn't call them overrated, Hall worthy, yes (just take a look at their influence) but overrated, no."

Agreed. I was thinking about the UK when I called them overrated. Conversely, in the US Definitely Maybe is underrated. I fully agree with you on Pearl Jam as well. Good and important, but...

"And yes Sam, I'd love to see the underrated list."

Coming up. As for the other points:

With Nirvana, here's what's said about them:

-Great band: True.

-Highly influential: True.

-Best band of the 90's: That's anyone's call.

-Killed hair metal: It was on the way out anyway, with thrash metal finally breaking through; that, combined with Appetite for Destruction, presented a grittier second option and helped kick it to the curb (it was dying anyway due to overhype and being watered down). If anything Nevermind was a grave-digger.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 02.14.11 @ 05:03am


(Continued)

-Brought alternative rock to the mainstream: Certainly not. R.E.M. were having hits and Top 10 albums by the end of the 90's, and "Losing My Religion" was nearly as big as Teen Spirit. Nirvana were opening for RHCP in '91. Faith No More, Jane's Addiction and The Cure all had platinum albums and Top 20 hits by that point. On the other hand, bringing Seattle to the masses is something they should be given credit for: Alice in Chains' contributions can't be underestimated, but Facelift merely went Gold originally; they didn't become stars until '93. Soundgarden didn't become stars until Superunkown, which was when Badmotorfinger reached 2x platinum. Ten didn't blow up until Nevermind did. Somebody from Seattle may have broken out if Nirvana didn't exist, but no way would it have been as big. The Pixies and R.E.M. and the like would still be on the same level, though.

"Heck, I remember Skid Row releasing an album in 1995."

They had a #1 album in '91, but that was when they went heavier, kind of like Pantera, who would break out the following year. Judas Priest had come back with a vengeance around the same time by tapping into what thrash and speed metal bands were doing.

-Post-grunge: I think STP and Foo Fighters will get in eventually, with Nickleback having a legitimate shot if they continue doing what they're doing. Right now they're an argument for the induction of Alice in Chains though. Kind of like Coldplay is for Radiohead and Oasis.

"I'll defend the Nominating Committee for a sec and point out that MC5 and the Dolls were nominated, so at least they have supporters and were given a chance. Their failures to get in were most likely the voting comittee being backwards idiots as usual and picked bland, vanilla groups over the true HOFers. However, it is the Nominating Comittees fault for not nomiating them since. Quire a few times the Committee makes the right choice only to have it foiled by the voting committee, they're a huge part of the problem. (See Kraftwerk, War, Beastie Boys, KISS)"

Agreed. They already dismissed the "Band A before Band B" thing, so I won't go for it. It's just a matter of time for the Beasties and KISS though. If I do a Band A before Band B thing (The Smiths, New Order/Joy Division and The Cure and the like before The Stone Roses, or Black Flag before Bad Brains), it's because Band A was either just as or more important and had a more substantial output.

Oh, I was going to do an underrated: The prog band Porcupine Tree. Try the albums In Absentia, Deadwing and Fear of A Blank Planet. Suede is another. Even underrated in the UK to some degree; their first three albums are on par with Oasis, Blur and Pulp and their debut was just as important to Britpop in some ways, but they sometimes aren't put on par with them. Alice in Chains would be a third; despite all they've accomplished, they either aren't recognized sometimes or are dismissed because of their influence.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 02.14.11 @ 05:32am


Red Hot Chili Peppers
Green Day
Coldplay
Madonna
My Bloody Valentine
Weezer
Beyonce
Oasis
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Primal Scream
Elastica

These were the acts who were supposed to be overrated as compared to the White Stripes. I hope you don't mind my weighing in here.

First off, the White Stripes themselves. They found a path that few bands were making any attempt to jump onto at the time, namely the blues/punk path. Most rock acts followed the heavy Soundgarden/Alice trip (see nu metal), the Brit-ballad path (see everyone in England not named the Libertines 2000-2009) or the progressive whine path (Green Day - Blink 182 - Good Charlotte - etc., etc. on). They weren't as tight as the Black Keys, didn't have the regionalism of Kings of Leon, but still did a good job at slop bucket rock with melodies & riffs that were there (providing you kept an ear open). I'd put them in the Hall.

RHCP - No intense innoavtion, no real influence, YET quite distinctive to their time. Less hip-hop than the Beasties, less arty than Jane's, sat in the middle w/some funky hard rock, till they started dropping ballads into the mix. Commercial but still harder edged in 1991/1995, went to a laid back style in 99 & beyond. It might not agree w/everyone, but it is THERE'S as a style.

Green Day - Never set out to launch whine-fest (despite the call of the Napa Valley, cause after all, we are in Cali here). Don't hold it against them. Listen to "Dookie" again; I mean really LISTEN to it. Do you really hear the sound of emo in "She" or "Welcome To Paradise?" Had they quit after "Warning" in 2000, they'd be remembered as an iconic pop-punk act that left after trying a "stripped down" approach. They didn't know Estee-Lauder would take over punk, so cut them some slack.

Coldplay - melodic rock straight down the middle. They're only overrated if you WANTED them to be the second coming of Blur/Oasis/Stone Roses, etc. Not much for innovation, but the sound was influential to the immediate times (2000-2011 & counting).

Madonna - She's done everything a pop star should do, and nothing a rock star would do... this being if your definition of rock doesn't come from a pop perspective. She cannot be overrated or underrated. In pop she means everything. In rock she wouldn't even make a list. If you claim she's pop, then there's nothing to hold against her; if you claim she's rock, then you claim wrong.

MBV - Depends on where you are, as others have said. In the U.S., the answer's no, since you cannot be overrated if the scene you were a part of never really caught on.

Weezer - Started off writing fuzzy little #'s w/some good hooks, while spreading the treatise of nerdhood far & wide. That was the 90's. In the 2000's he's writing the same songs, but now he seems intent on busting the chops of everyone flashy. He's like a nerdy Charles Bronson.

Beyonce - See Madonna
(continued...)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 02.14.11 @ 18:22pm


(continued)

Oasis - It all comes down to the album "Definitely Maybe", & two songs - "Supersonic" & "Live Forever". On "Supersonic", they manage to both sound like the Beatles, and sound like they are PISSED off about sounding like the Beatles - SIMULTANEOUSLY! Not bad, & actually QUITE ORIGINAL (after all, even the Beatles never sounded pissed off about being the Beatles). "Live Forever" simply sounds like a Beatles tune. Think about "Wonderwall", & you'll see they chose to "Live Forever". So did the whole of the Brit-Pop scene. I prefer the "Supersonic" sound - stiff rhythm, louder guitars, & a big old sneery sound. The first three albums we're good though.

Nirvana - A power trio w/a fairly good vocalist/sub-par guitarist, a fairly good bassist, & an excellent drummer. Doesn't sound like a winning combo, right? It was though, & you want to know why? Because the man leading the group was the greatest arranger in rock, BAR NONE, over the past 35 years. This man simply knew where to put certain things in a song to make it work. It's the main reason a guy who was average at best on guitar, & who was singing mostly sad songs, could sell so many copies of an album & change so much. And that's also the reason why they are NOT OVERRATED.

Pearl Jam - Vastly UNDERRATED. "Ten" was hard blues w/a grunge coating & some leftover 80's effects. "Vs." was shorter, thrashier, and funkier. Classic Rock songs stuffed into punk rock time. "Vitalogy" took the same songs on "Vs.", brought them back length-wise more in line w/"Ten", but stripped away the overreaching production effects of the 80's. "Vitalogy" is where "post-grunge" begins; you can't be "post" anything till the sound is fully mapped out.

Post-grunge (or as I prefer to call it, hard rock) went on it's happy way. PJ, meanwhile, never stopped trying to move forward. They got in touch w/their little inner-Maharishi on "No Code". Apparently nobody dug the vibes, so "Yield" was a retreat, back to the "Vitalogy" sound. "Binaural" had some chill-out bluesy material & Pink Floyd sounds worked in. "Riot Act" was them doing what they wanted & preaching to the choir. The Avocado album was angry, "Backspacer' was poppy, but they've never sat on their laurels.

Primal Scream/Elastica - Not really familiar w/everything they did. I do know I think "Stutter" is an awesome song, & "Connection" is good. I know Primal Scream did some dance stuff, & they had some acoustic guitars & soul singer sounds.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 02.14.11 @ 19:09pm


Weezer, despite their horrid post 2001 material, deserve induction, if only for the influence of Pinkerton and the Blue Album. They're certainly overrated now, but back then (1996-97ish) they were kinda underrated, as they, like STP, got a lot of critical drubbing as faux alt rock. (Since they played alt rock but cited groups like The Cars, Metallica and KISS as influence)

Posted by Jim on Monday, 02.14.11 @ 19:41pm


"Not much for innovation, but the sound was influential to the immediate times (2000-2011 & counting)." - Cheesecrop

Well, they do sound quite distinctive, and the post-Britpop sound was a combination of Radiohead and Oasis. I'm not sure if Coldplay invented that, but they were the ones who put it out there. I certainly wouldn't want them to try and be the second coming of the groups you mentioned because that implies ripping them off*. I'm glad they tried to do their own thing instead.

*That was what nearly killed Blur, starting out copying The Stone Roses and Happy Mondays. "She's So High" and "There's No Other Way" may have been derivative, but they were still awesome (kind of like "Creep"), but then "Bang" was just lazy, and when that scene died they got it together and tried to do their own thing. If Parklife hadn't been a success they might've disappeared and been forgotten.

Alright, the bands discussed:

Red Hot Chili Peppers - should and will get in.
Green Day - see RHCP.
Coldplay - not quite there yet, but probably will at the rate they're going. If they continue to be an inescapable presence I'd be fine with their induction.
My Bloody Valentine - should get in but won't.
Weezer - I'd be fine with their induction, and they'll probably get in.
Beyonce - too early to tell, but she's on the right track.
Oasis - should and probably will get in. Not really innovative, but very influential (more so in the UK, but that's just a technicality).
Nirvana - lock, and deservedly so.
Pearl Jam - see Nirvana.
Primal Scream - I could go either way on their induction, but they won't make it so it doesn't matter.
Elastica - just like The Stone Roses here: if the second album had been done quicker and hadn't flopped, they may have had a chance, but no more than a footnote in the States. Good band, and distinguished themselves from Oasis/Blur/Suede/Pulp with the post-punk/new wave revivalism, but fall short of qualifying in my opinion. Too short-lived and not enough of an impact.
STP - see Weezer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Pearl Jam were also panned by some as faux-alternative because of the classic rock revivalism and were accused of riding on the Nevermind wave (Cobain had no personal problems with them but hated the music; he called it "corporate c*ck rock" and said that Ten wasn't a true alternative album because it had guitar solos).

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 02.15.11 @ 12:43pm


"Oh, I was going to do an underrated: The prog band Porcupine Tree. Try the albums In Absentia, Deadwing and Fear of A Blank Planet. Suede is another."

I agree. I own In Absentia and Deadwing, though I've never had the opportunity to see the band live. I'm not sure how influential they are but they're definitely underrated.

I also agree on Suede. It's a pity they're not better known in the U.S. though. Underrated for sure.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 02.15.11 @ 13:43pm


"though I've never had the opportunity to see the band live."

Do so, you won't regret it. I saw them at the Nokia Theatre on Times Square and the Electric Factory in Philly, both great shows. King's X opened the latter, though they were kind of a dissapointment.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 02.15.11 @ 17:13pm


I will make sure I go see them then!!

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 02.16.11 @ 02:37am


"they (Weezer), like STP, got a lot of critical drubbing as faux alt rock." - Jim

I've never heard that myself, though it's probably because I either was to young at the time or wasn't paying attention. I can certainly see critics accusing them of that, I love Pinkerton (which would actually prove to be influential on the alt scene) personally, and it was definitely innovative and sounded fresh when it was released during the third wave ska movement (see Sublime, Rancid, No Doubt, etc)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 02.16.11 @ 04:45am


Correction: "too young" not "to young"

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 02.16.11 @ 04:45am


Tahvo, you better see them fast. Word on the streets is that they are breaking up.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 02.16.11 @ 06:18am


Paul, you mean Porcupine Tree or the White Stripes? I know about the Stripes, but I was talking about Porcupine Tree (it's my own fault for not being specific in that post, though I was directly referring to Sam's post)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 02.16.11 @ 06:44am


Tahvo, I was talking about the Stripes. Should have known that you would already know.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 02.17.11 @ 06:16am


No worries Paul

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 02.17.11 @ 06:44am


all this thing is a little bit unfair . The white stripes have 66% induction chanses while the legendary Scorpions only 8%. What are criteria and who measures how much an artist has accompliced them? No, if the white stripes enter the fame it would be a clear proof that the RnRHoF is not objective and chooses the artists... who knows how.

Deep purple iron maiden scorpions guns n roses bon jovi are out. Why should the white stripes even be considered as nominees?

Posted by tasos on Monday, 05.2.11 @ 06:22am


Guns 'n' Roses aren't even eligible until September. If they're still not in by this time next year then come back and complain; try and pay more attention in your Reading Comprehension classes in the meantime.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 06.4.11 @ 09:45am


all these bands are overrated. Only progressive rock, and blues rock of the 60's60's 70's 80's 90's grunge was overrated--and was really rcok with no guitar solos. Rush,, YEs, Fripp, Sunny Ay Real Estate, Blind Melon, Grant Lee Buffalo,, REM

90's had great songs ie-toad the wet sprocket, toadies, nirvana, STP, Fastball. Come end of 90's nothing to now--part of it is the industry, and hard to come up wiht good band names.

Posted by ben on Friday, 06.10.11 @ 00:59am


onl hey day rockers had real innovation and prowess. Jack white smart marketer, good music like zepp 3 feel. But he is a garage rocker, and is not a smooth blueplayer. he cannot play the sweet blues...u saw him in the company of Pagey....Rich robinson and Audley Freed, Trey, Duane Allman, Mother hips Marc Ford, Derek Trucks now you are talking

Posted by ben on Friday, 06.10.11 @ 01:02am


Using my formula:

Influence: I can't find anything online but I'd say taht The WHite Stripes were a big influence on the garage rock scene now and hard rock. Yes
Innovation: They were the first band in the garage rock revival scene. Yes
Critical Reception: The Stripes have been ver popular with critics and are probably among the most rated bands of the 2000's.
Commercial reception: They've done quite well for a rock band these days, most of their albums have gone pretty high on the charts. YES

That's a yes all around.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 08.25.11 @ 11:54am


Improving:

Influence: yeah, they've definetly been an influence on modern day rock bands. 20
Innovation: Were pretty much the spearhead of the garage rock revival. 10
Critical respect: Been highly rated by many critics and their albums do well on lists. 20
Commercial: They've sold pretty well but nothing astounding. 5

add 10 for Elephant and Dead Leaves And The Dirty Ground

65, worthy but first or second balloter.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 10.17.11 @ 14:23pm


ONLY 66% THE SHOULD BE 99%

Posted by JACOB morin on Sunday, 10.30.11 @ 13:43pm


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.