|
|
Post by erik on Apr 7, 2015 9:03:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 9:44:12 GMT -5
She has a point about the publicity afforded the 'pop tarts' instead of the women making credible rock and roll...
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 7, 2015 9:51:43 GMT -5
I do feel that the RRHOF, for reasons having to do with sexism and a certain misogyny, has missed out on inducting great female artists over the years. Besides the fact that it took them far too long to induct Linda, they still ignore Pat Benatar and Stevie Nicks (solo career). And there are many others I could name that also aren't in there as of yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 7, 2015 23:22:55 GMT -5
Have they ever considered Lita Ford?
Dont know if she is eligible yet but.. Linda Perry
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 8, 2015 9:39:36 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna:
I don't think they've ever considered either one. Lita's solo career (as opposed to the one she had with the Runaways, which also included Joan Jett) hasn't, to my knowledge, been much to write home about. Then again, I don't think Joan's is much of anything either, no matter what anyone says about "I Love Rock N Roll".
As for Linda Perry--aside from having the one big hit ("What's Up?") with her band 4 Non Blondes in 1998, she's mostly stayed behind the scenes, writing and/or producing for, among others, Pink and Christina Aguilera. I don't know how much of that figures into their thinking. Maybe not much, since it sometimes seems like the RRHOF guys don't do that much thinking (IMHO).
Two others I would consider very strongly from the fairer sex: Emmylou, and Lucinda Williams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Apr 8, 2015 13:29:50 GMT -5
Emmylou Harris in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Seems pretty far-fetched to me- I don't think she has made enough of an imprint in the rock world to be considered (regardless of what that a**h*le Robert Hilburn said). I would be far more interested to see Linda Ronstadt inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. She has had tremendous influence and success in that market, and IMIO should have been inducted into the CMHoF even before Emmylou.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 8, 2015 14:38:30 GMT -5
Quote by Partridge:
I don't dispute that Linda should be in the CMHoF (though maybe they consider her "too West Coast"). But aside from what Hilburn might have said, I think Emmy would be a good choice because she does have a huge crossover respectability that honors both traditions and progress. Her later albums (after 1989) have gone largely into (alternative) rock with an accent on roots influences, which, in my honest opinion, makes her a name to at least be considered now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 8, 2015 16:04:41 GMT -5
I think had Emmylou been around during the birth of Rock n Roll or rockabilly.. like Wanda Jackson, she'd be in. If that's the case then Rosanne Cash should be there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by TP on Apr 8, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -5
I suppose my problems with those "progressive" Emmylou albums is that they arrived at a time when I either lost interest in her because of either a decline in her voice or a change in my tastes. To me, her vocals are the weak link in her later albums. I often find her hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 8, 2015 17:53:40 GMT -5
Quote by TP:
Well, rightly or wrongly, Emmy went in the direction she went beginning in 1989-1990 because the country music industry, both because of ageism and because of the coming of the Garth Brooks "revolution", was starting to shun those of her generation (even though many of the women of the coming crowd [notably Trisha Yearwood] counted both her and Linda as influences). She just found her own "niche" audience, one that was much more stable than a country industry that was becoming dreadfully fickle. Much like Linda, once she started her way down the path she chose, there really wasn't any looking back. The country music industry had changed radically, and it wasn't to her liking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 8, 2015 21:41:31 GMT -5
what about Siouxsie and the Banshees (Siouxsie Sioux ) ? Didn't she start the whole goth thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 8, 2015 22:38:48 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna:
I'm a bit dubious about acts who start things and trends without first being about the music, to be honest. If anything, I think Siuoxsie and the Banshees would be recognized as a leading punk-rock band, though they hardly sold many records.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 8, 2015 23:00:38 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna: I'm a bit dubious about acts who start things and trends without first being about the music, to be honest. If anything, I think Siuoxsie and the Banshees would be recognized as a leading punk-rock band, though they hardly sold many records. I would need to see how much they sold but I don't recall any mainstream hits. I remember that band as very popular .. but isn't that what part of rock and roll is.. ... underground. I'm not sure about trendy over the music with that band.. but yes, like it or not.. and if you ask most kids.. in rock and roll both elements are very important. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 9, 2015 8:46:43 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna:
And in essence, the Banshees were indeed an underground group. Punk really didn't totally reconfigure rock and roll in any real way without first being co-opted into the New Wave movement.
In terms of movements in rock and roll, I have always thought that the trends/movements that start out with a bang and a ton of media attention more often than not seem to burn out almost as fast for a myriad of reasons, or they morph into something radically different from what they began as. The longest-lasting movements seem to me to be the ones that are so subtle one really doesn't notice them right away. One such example would actually be Linda herself; she subtly encouraged female singers to really be themselves and not try to conform to an image, and, as a result, in my opinion, there are so many like-minded female artists, both of her generation and the four that have come since, that just do what they do and be who they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 9, 2015 9:10:19 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna: I'm a bit dubious about acts who start things and trends without first being about the music, to be honest. If anything, I think Siuoxsie and the Banshees would be recognized as a leading punk-rock band, though they hardly sold many records. I would need to see how much they sold but I don't recall any mainstream hits. I remember that band as very popular .. but isn't that what part of rock and roll is.. ... underground. I'm not sure about trendy over the music with that band.. but yes, like it or not.. and if you ask most kids.. in rock and roll both elements are very important. They were very popular in the UK and had lots of hits there. Not massive hits, but plenty that made the charts. I don't really see them as a punk act, but more as an alternative rock or 'cold wave' act with a punk attitude. They were part of that movement though, and one of the more interesting ones at that. |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 9, 2015 16:24:56 GMT -5
In terms of movements in rock and roll, I have always thought that the trends/movements that start out with a bang and a ton of media attention more often than not seem to burn out almost as fast for a myriad of reasons, or they morph into something radically different from what they began as. The longest-lasting movements seem to me to be the ones that are so subtle one really doesn't notice them right away. One such example would actually be Linda herself; she subtly encouraged female singers to really be themselves and not try to conform to an image, and, as a result, in my opinion, there are so many like-minded female artists, both of her generation and the four that have come since, that just do what they do and be who they are.[/quote] I don't know about that Erik. If we are talking about the banchees, who are a band that started out in the late 70's.. from what I can see, the goth culture is still going strong. There will always be fashion trends in music, even Linda herself was "thriftstore chic," she still had a certain look that evolved from what was happening in pop culture during the late 60's and 70's, she was a hippie, barefoot, long hair and hoop earrings.. It's just a style you prefer. I think that with most trend setters.. even Linda. and Siouxsie, she had come up during the glam rock era.. Not everybody dresses like a hippie nor should they. Be who you are . I think they are being who they are. My b/f niece.. her bed looks like a coffin and her dad is building her a hearse because she wants to drive that type of a car. lol.. weird and somewhat morbid but that is who she is. |
|
|
|
Post by Sloan on Apr 17, 2015 14:10:08 GMT -5
Personally, I would love to see Petula Clark be nominated and inducted.
|
|
|
|
Post by moe on Apr 17, 2015 14:41:37 GMT -5
Personally, I would love to see Petula Clark be nominated and inducted. I agree, too bad she didn't write her own material. See how stupid that sounds!! Seriously I remember she was huge back in the (my) day. Had to verify that Pet's contemporary, Dusty was in, another one inducted the year she died. Seems that being dead is a requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 17, 2015 16:19:28 GMT -5
Quote by moe:
Either that, or having your voice crippled by a disease you couldn't prevent, as happened with Linda. Sorry for the cynicism, but Jann Wenner tends to breed that in a lot of artists' fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 19, 2015 17:14:10 GMT -5
Quote by Dianna: I'm a bit dubious about acts who start things and trends without first being about the music, to be honest. If anything, I think Siuoxsie and the Banshees would be recognized as a leading punk-rock band, though they hardly sold many records. I would need to see how much they sold but I don't recall any mainstream hits. I remember that band as very popular .. but isn't that what part of rock and roll is.. ... underground. I'm not sure about trendy over the music with that band.. but yes, like it or not.. and if you ask most kids.. in rock and roll both elements are very important. I'm coming a bit late on this part of the thread but as the R&RHoF has never really been about artists having a lot of hits and more about their musical artistry and integrity, influence on other musical artists and positive reception by the critics to the music, one would think Siouxsie and the Banshees should be a shoo-in as I recall they did get a lot of a favorable press from the critics, although I don't know how much of a musical influence they were on other artists and know even less about their musical artistry and integrity. That they never caught on with a majority of the public would be a plus with the critics but does that hold for the musicians who are in the hall and who vote on other musical acts? I remember seeing the Banshees at the beginning of the punk rock phase and thought they were different, both in terms of the artists who made up the pop charts at the time and even those who were part of the punk scene. Quite frankly, I thought a lot of artists who got tagged with the punk rock label were wrongfully tagged with that label and not punk at all. But, I thought a lot of musical acts called themselves punk at the time because that seemed to be where music was heading, although in retrospect, it was one of the shortest-lived sub-genres of rock. And I think that had more to do with the integrity than with sales although the bands should've been just as concerned about the sales because little to no sales meant a very short stay on a record label. As for Siouxsie and the Banshees being in the R&RHof, joke that it is, Joan Jett being in, although I like Joan, I can't really point to any qualifications she actually has to be in the hall other than she's maybe a critical fave with some sales. So, why not Siouxsie and the Banshees? |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 19, 2015 17:30:40 GMT -5
Personally, I would love to see Petula Clark be nominated and inducted. I agree, too bad she didn't write her own material. See how stupid that sounds!! Seriously I remember she was huge back in the (my) day. Had to verify that Pet's contemporary, Dusty was in, another one inducted the year she died. Seems that being dead is a requirement. Ah, but Petula did write some of her own songs. She wasn't a very prolific songwriter but she has more songwriting credits than you think. And with her former songwriter-producer Tony Hatch, she cowrote "You're the One," which was a hit for the Vogues when they covered the song. Her self-penned songs were usually on her albums and the occasional B-side. But, I don't think Petula would ever be nominated and inducted because she really wasn't a rock and roll singer, but a middle of the road pop singer who just had the incredible good fortune to get caught up in the British Invasion. That I don't think comes with a qualifier in that one can never underestimate what the nominating members at the R&RHoF will do. Petula could be nominated for the 2016 class although she may be another one they get around to after she is gone from this world. I'd like to see her in as although she was a middle of the road pop singer, she wasn't totally far off the rock and roll path. |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 20, 2015 4:54:03 GMT -5
I agree, too bad she didn't write her own material. See how stupid that sounds!! Seriously I remember she was huge back in the (my) day. Had to verify that Pet's contemporary, Dusty was in, another one inducted the year she died. Seems that being dead is a requirement. Ah, but Petula did write some of her own songs. She wasn't a very prolific songwriter but she has more songwriting credits than you think. And with her former songwriter-producer Tony Hatch, she cowrote "You're the One," which was a hit for the Vogues when they covered the song. Her self-penned songs were usually on her albums and the occasional B-side. But, I don't think Petula would ever be nominated and inducted because she really wasn't a rock and roll singer, but a middle of the road pop singer who just had the incredible good fortune to get caught up in the British Invasion. That I don't think comes with a qualifier in that one can never underestimate what the nominating members at the R&RHoF will do. Petula could be nominated for the 2016 class although she may be another one they get around to after she is gone from this world. I'd like to see her in as although she was a middle of the road pop singer, she wasn't totally far off the rock and roll path. They should get over this rock'n'roll nonsense. Most artists that are already inducted are NOT rock'n'roll. This rock'n'roll thing is far too limiting a description for the ground they are supposed to cover. Something like THIS is what the HOF should look like.  A bit self-serving because I'm the founder of this rather tiny (but knowledgable) forum - some of them are also members here. We're only at the 1971 and earlier stage at this point, so don't expect Siouxsie & the Banshees just yet.  jhar26.proboards.com/thread/4861/hall-fame-gallery |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 20, 2015 21:18:38 GMT -5
They should get over this rock'n'roll nonsense. Most artists that are already inducted are NOT rock'n'roll. This rock'n'roll thing is far too limiting a description for the ground they are supposed to cover. Something like THIS is what the HOF should look like. A bit self-serving because I'm the founder of this rather tiny (but knowledgable) forum - some of them are also members here. We're only at the 1971 and earlier stage at this point, so don't expect Siouxsie & the Banshees just yet. jhar26.proboards.com/thread/4861/hall-fame-galleryActually, my counter argument would be that most of the artists who are in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (joke that it is) were considered rock and roll at the height of their popularity, but rock and roll is a liquid art form. That is, it's always changing, so what passed for rock and roll circa 1966 wouldn't sound like rock and roll in 2015. The problem with who determines what rock and roll is that it's a subjective argument. You have metal heads who don't think any of the artists who are in the hall are or were rockers and therefore shouldn't be in. Then you have fans who think the artists they liked, who tended to be middle of the road performers or pop performers, should be in because they had hits on the charts during the rock era. But, then, you have the people who run the R&RHoF, the Jann Wenner crowd and the music industry people - people who don't really care what the fans think but who think they have the final say on who is or isn't rock and roll, and who is or isn't eligible to be nominated. The Jann Wenner crowd, for instance, will never allow the Monkees to be considered because of old, bitter prejudices and grudges they hold against the group. This, despite the fact the Monkees are one of the few acts who actually meet all of the hall's criteria for nomination and induction. The hall has never really mentioned (or mentions) who an inducted artist influenced, never mentioned (or mentions) how the artist contributed to the genre. I suspect that on some, they were in because they met one of the hall's criteria but not all of the criteria. And I also suspect that some of the artists who are in, are in because they were the darlings of the critics but not necessarily the public. And the reason the darlings of the critics got in was because the hall ignored its own guidelines on artist nominations. There shouldn't be any blocks coming from any quarter of the hall's nominating committee. If any musical artist, male, female or group meets any or all of the qualifications, they deserve to be considered as they are the ones who recorded and released the music. Not parasitic rock critics who think they are the kingmakers and the final arbiters of rock and roll. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 20, 2015 22:05:08 GMT -5
Personally I think Rock and Roll is on its way out. A "Popular Music Hall of Fame" will be longer lasting (PMHOF). Not long ago I read how Jazz Music is struggling to survive. As Mama Cass would say:
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 21, 2015 9:12:37 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
With respect to the Monkees, I think it may start with Wenner's (and other RRHOF kommisars') belief that the Monkees were a made-for-TV band. It's just another one of those cockeyed rationalizations they make for keeping certain groups/artists out (at least while they're still alive or well), while making up equally cockeyed justifications for putting others in, and anointing Springsteen and U2 to God-like (i.e. Elvis/Beatles) status. But I do think they had a knee-jerk reaction to inducting Joan Jett this year in part because she was there in 2014 to help induct Nirvana, and because they still get their rocks off on "I Love Rock N Roll".
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 21, 2015 19:17:32 GMT -5
Personally I think Rock and Roll is on its way out. A "Popular Music Hall of Fame" will be longer lasting (PMHOF). Not long ago I read how Jazz Music is struggling to survive. As Mama Cass would say: Rock and roll's demise has long been predicted by its detractors but it really never has happened. It's still around, maybe not healthy but that's more to do with the music business overall not being in a healthy state. My guess would be that the majority of the music downloads are rock related recordings. As for cd album sales, well the sales are lower but here again, the sales are lower for all genres as the downloads have cut into cd sales. Even before that happened, the artists and bands were starting to discover they didn't need to be on a major label. Many artists and bands felt they could control the integrity of their music by not being on a major label. Of course, there were still quite a few who wanted to be on a major label but the free agents were under no pressure to produce one hit after another. All music genres, groups/artists and record companies need to adapt to any change if they are to survive. But, rock is not going anywhere anytime soon and maybe not for a good long while, although it may appear to be in a slump right now. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 21, 2015 20:04:00 GMT -5
With respect to the Monkees, I think it may start with Wenner's (and other RRHOF kommisars') belief that the Monkees were a made-for-TV band. It's just another one of those cockeyed rationalizations they make for keeping certain groups/artists out (at least while they're still alive or well), while making up equally cockeyed justifications for putting others in, and anointing Springsteen and U2 to God-like (i.e. Elvis/Beatles) status. But I do think they had a knee-jerk reaction to inducting Joan Jett this year in part because she was there in 2014 to help induct Nirvana, and because they still get their rocks off on "I Love Rock N Roll". I think Wenner and his crowd did have an issue with the fact the Monkees were a made-for-tv band, but their argument doesn't hold up on that count because of Rick Nelson. Rick Nelson's intro as a rock and roll artist occurred the same way, through television on his family's tv show. And he's in the R&RHoF. His singing (but not playing) was planned as a one-off episode but he proved to be such a good singer that his career as a singer was born. It was also said to have been born from an incident in which he was out on a date with a girl who gushed over Elvis, to which he reportedly said, "He's not so much! I'm cutting my own record next week." At the time, it was a false boast but one which he later worried about when he met Elvis. Before he met the King, he'd heard that Elvis had heard about his boast and he worried Elvis was going to deck him for it. He was surprised to find that Elvis actually liked him and his music. But, getting back to the Wenner crowd after detouring through Rick Nelson, their main objection has always been that the group didn't initially play on their own recordings. It was another fraud by Wenner and company as the Monkees' dirty little secret (using session musicians to make the music) was also the dirty little secret about a good number of bands, not only in the L.A. area but also in New York and even in London. That the Monkees didn't play initially on their first two albums wasn't really a secret to the rock media. They knew about it but it only became a big deal after Mike Nesmith complained about the group not being allowed to played on their records. Then, the rock media acted like they had been deceived by the group. But, not Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone never said one word at the time the story broke (December 1966-January 1967) because they did not exist as a magazine. Rolling Stone came into existence in November 1967, long after the Monkees had taken over the playing on their recordings. The smoke had already settled but why Rolling Stone (and Jann Wenner) continued to make it an issue is a mystery. In a way, it was a beneficial issue, not just for the Monkees but for those other bands that had used the session musicians as well. Bands could no longer get by relying on session musicians instead of using their own talents to make the music, although many did. I don't think Rolling Stone or any of the other rock media at the time actually listened to the Monkees's recordings as there was a later evaluation in the 70s and 80s that the Monkees had made some good records. But, still, Wenner persists in his 1960s prejudices although the common consensus by the rock media now is that Wenner's argument is no longer valid, given what has been learned since 1967 - main one being there were others who didn't play. If you're going to hold it against one, you've got to hold it against all who did it. |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 22, 2015 13:28:16 GMT -5
They should get over this rock'n'roll nonsense. Most artists that are already inducted are NOT rock'n'roll. This rock'n'roll thing is far too limiting a description for the ground they are supposed to cover. Something like THIS is what the HOF should look like. A bit self-serving because I'm the founder of this rather tiny (but knowledgable) forum - some of them are also members here. We're only at the 1971 and earlier stage at this point, so don't expect Siouxsie & the Banshees just yet. jhar26.proboards.com/thread/4861/hall-fame-galleryActually, my counter argument would be that most of the artists who are in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (joke that it is) were considered rock and roll at the height of their popularity, but rock and roll is a liquid art form. That is, it's always changing, so what passed for rock and roll circa 1966 wouldn't sound like rock and roll in 2015. The problem with who determines what rock and roll is that it's a subjective argument. You have metal heads who don't think any of the artists who are in the hall are or were rockers and therefore shouldn't be in. Then you have fans who think the artists they liked, who tended to be middle of the road performers or pop performers, should be in because they had hits on the charts during the rock era. But, then, you have the people who run the R&RHoF, the Jann Wenner crowd and the music industry people - people who don't really care what the fans think but who think they have the final say on who is or isn't rock and roll, and who is or isn't eligible to be nominated. The Jann Wenner crowd, for instance, will never allow the Monkees to be considered because of old, bitter prejudices and grudges they hold against the group. This, despite the fact the Monkees are one of the few acts who actually meet all of the hall's criteria for nomination and induction. The hall has never really mentioned (or mentions) who an inducted artist influenced, never mentioned (or mentions) how the artist contributed to the genre. I suspect that on some, they were in because they met one of the hall's criteria but not all of the criteria. And I also suspect that some of the artists who are in, are in because they were the darlings of the critics but not necessarily the public. And the reason the darlings of the critics got in was because the hall ignored its own guidelines on artist nominations. There shouldn't be any blocks coming from any quarter of the hall's nominating committee. If any musical artist, male, female or group meets any or all of the qualifications, they deserve to be considered as they are the ones who recorded and released the music. Not parasitic rock critics who think they are the kingmakers and the final arbiters of rock and roll. To be fair, it's also true of course that there is no way that you can please everybody when you put something like that together. It's the same when they post those the greatest albums, artists, songs, actors/actresses, movies , lists. I've never seen one where everyone (or even just someone) said, "I totally agree. That's how mine would look as well." It's the same with a HOF. No matter who's in there, there will always be someone fave's who didn't make it. But if they put everyone in there, what's the point? I think they started out very well with their HOF. But as the years went by I became less impressed with some of their choices. For the last 10 years or so there are always a few of whom I think, "why them, but not those who I think are more deserving?" But 'critics' as a whole serve a purpose imo. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. But at least they know who's who and what's what whereas 90% (or more) of 'the public' is completely clueless. If you would ask them who Roger Daltrey is the chance that they will answer that he's the point guard for the LA Clippers is just as big than that they will say that he's the lead singer of the Who. I mean, a few years ago I saw a program on Belgian television where they asked people on the street if they knew who Louis Armstrong was. Some knew who he was, but some thought that he was the first man on the moon and others thought that he had won the tour de France seven times! So if I have to choose between two evils for putting a HOF together I still prefer the critics, and by a wide margin at that. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 22, 2015 17:43:58 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26:
The trouble is that, for a lot of fans, putting the critics (like Dave Marsh and Robert Christgau, and their chief enabler Jann Wenner) in charge of something like this is tantamount to hiring a fox as a security guard for a henhouse. It took an unconscionably long time for them to recognize Linda; and it was only because of the Parkinson's revelation that it happened at all; they seemed to be really scared of having another case of bad PR surrounding them after both Donna Summer and Dusty Springfield died before either one was inducted. For me, the true gatekeepers are the ones who actually made the music--artists; musicians; producers; and not necessarily just the critics.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Apr 22, 2015 18:48:51 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26: The trouble is that, for a lot of fans, putting the critics (like Dave Marsh and Robert Christgau, and their chief enabler Jann Wenner) in charge of something like this is tantamount to hiring a fox as a security guard for a henhouse. It took an unconscionably long time for them to recognize Linda; and it was only because of the Parkinson's revelation that it happened at all; they seemed to be really scared of having another case of bad PR surrounding them after both Donna Summer and Dusty Springfield died before either one was inducted. For me, the true gatekeepers are the ones who actually made the music--artists; musicians; producers; and not necessarily just the critics. But those are just three of them. Three votes of what I understand are 600. And if it was decided by public vote half of the names in there would have us rolling on the floor in laughter. Even so, the way Wenner runs his HOF is highly questionable. Like the Dave Clark Five episode with him preferring that a rap act would get in.. He may not like the Dave Clark Five - to be honest, for me they aren't HOF material either. But you can't ignore a vote just because you don't like the result. If he does that he should just say, "I'm the one who decides who gets in here and the rest of you guys can just fuck off." If nothing else than it would at least be honest. But still, the main reason why that HOF isn't a complete disaster is that the public doesn't have a vote. I know that I sound like a snob, but that's my honest opinion. Music is important to me and it's important to you and other posters here. That's why I value your opinion and the opinion of others here as much as that of any critic. But the public at large isn't like that. They think that Simon Cowell is the best thing ever. Can anyone with half a braincell trust such people to do a good job on putting a HOF together? |
|
A bit self-serving because I'm the founder of this rather tiny (but knowledgable) forum - some of them are also members here. We're only at the 1971 and earlier stage at this point, so don't expect Siouxsie & the Banshees just yet. 