cescpa
A Number and a Name
Posts: 19
|
Post by cescpa on Oct 9, 2015 19:45:07 GMT -5
The 2016 list of nominees for the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame have been announced: The Cars Chic Chicago Cheap Trick Deep Purple Janet Jackson The J.B.'s Chaka Khan Los Lobos Steve Miller Nine Inch Nails N.W.A The Smiths The Spinners Yes As a long-time fan of Linda's and reading and participating in the forum discussions here that led up to her induction into the HOF in 2014, it was doubly unnerving for me as a long-time fan of the band CHICAGO ... who I believe until this year has not even ever been on the final list of nominees, despite their huge charting success (LP's and Top 40 singles) and popularity in the 70's and resurgence in the mid-80's (with the help of record producer David Foster & new band member Bill Champlin, both of whom won a Grammy Award for co-writing the Earth Wind & Fire hit After The Love Has Gone, with fellow composer Jay Graydon ... and Bill won a second song writing Grammy for co-writing George Benson's hit Turn Your Love Around, along with Jay Graydon & Steve Lukather) ... any way, the band CHICAGO has gone just as long (if not longer) as Linda had to endure the HOF's snubbing ... and as a fan of both Linda and CHICAGO, my attitude toward consideration for the Rock N Roll HOF is somewhat cynical and jaded, with the band having been denied it's just recognition for so long ... it feels somewhat unseemly and "dirty" after all these years of being ignored by the HOF powers that be ... anyway, don't know if CHICAGO will make it in this time around ... but if you're inclined to go to the HOF web page and cast a vote, I am sure that fellow CHICAGO fans would be appreciative HOF Newsa sampling of a few CHICAGO favorites WISHING YOU WERE HERE , from a Dick Clark Rockin' New Year's Eve special FEELING STRONGER EVERYDAY , from a 1970's Dick Clark special IT'S ALRIGHT (featuring Bill Champlin) , from a SOLID GOLD episode and for the sake of letting you know more about Bill Champlin, here's Bill singing lead vocals on a version of the Stevie Wonder song HEAVEN HELP US ALL (a song that he helped the saxophonist GRADY NICHOLS to record) |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 9, 2015 20:01:32 GMT -5
I already have Chicago down as one of the five that I'd pick:
Chic
Chicago
Deep Purple
Los Lobos
The Spinners
I would also point out that one of their biggest hits, 1982's "Hard To Say I'm Sorry" (from Chicago 16), actually goes on for a little longer than you are normally used to hearing on the radio; there's an add-on called "Get Away", which is powered by their familiar brass section. In fact, one of the reasons I advocate their induction is because their use of brass (also done, and beforehand, by Blood, Sweat, and Tears) helped to reconnect rock with its jazz influences.
|
|
cescpa
A Number and a Name
Posts: 19
|
Post by cescpa on Oct 9, 2015 20:19:04 GMT -5
I agree with your voting for Chic , who I think their music goes underappreciated ... the influence of Bernard Edwards and Niles Rodgers on their contemporaries, and those who came after is undeniable ... how many times has their music been sampled, subconsciously copied, or overtly stolen since their composition of songs like GOOD TIMES and Le Freak
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 9, 2015 21:12:57 GMT -5
Quote b cescpa re. Chic:
It's especially true with respect to Nile Rodgers' syncopated electric guitar work on their hits (my personal favorite of theirs is "I Want Your Love"), which showed up again two years ago on Daft Punk's hit "Get Lucky."
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldie on Oct 10, 2015 0:20:35 GMT -5
How many can get selected?
My picks would be:
The Cars
Chicago
Deep Purple
Los Lobos
Steve Miller
The Smiths (even though they are an 80's band)
The Spinners
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 10, 2015 6:05:44 GMT -5
Deep Purple, Chaka Khan and Los Lobos for me. Most of the others fall into that category where I wouldn't have much of an argument against them getting in, but not much reason to think that they SHOULD get in either. Overal I'm rather lukewarm about this list of nominees. But I can't be bothered really. If they put in something like the cartoon act Kiss it's a anything goes situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2015 10:00:19 GMT -5
How many can get selected? My picks would be: The Cars Chicago Deep Purple Los Lobos Steve Miller The Smiths (even though they are an 80's band) The Spinners Yes The top five to seven acts getting 50% of the vote is the deciding factor although in the past, there have been more than seven getting 50%. So there is a cutoff, it would seem. My guess is that at least two or three of the acts named by those here will be among those chosen. I think first timer Janet Jackson will be among the chosen although she is not rock and roll. I like to gamble but not on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees because even though some are worthy and some are not, figuring out who will make the cut and who will not is hard because of those who are allowed to vote. You don't know their biases and prejudices. If I were to bet on who the finalists will be, I'm thinking it could go this way: Chic Janet Jackson Cheap Trick Nine Inch Nails The Smiths N.W.A. Los Lobos Deep Purple Deep Purple has been nominated before, as have some of the other acts of the 2016 nominees. It's like the nominating committee are bound and determined to get those acts in at all costs. And that presents a problem as constantly repeating the same acts from previous years causes other acts who meet the R&RHoF's criteria to be ignored and have to wait out another year for the possibility of an induction. Not that they're waiting. I'd change the rule on the top five to seven acts receiving 50% to all of the acts receiving 50% or more are in, as it gets old seeing the same names over and over. And require that the nominating committee either couldn't renominate them again for three years if the acts fail to make the cut or they have to have a separate list that allows five to seven new nominees each year with the same rule, 50% or more on the vote, they're in. |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 10, 2015 12:18:57 GMT -5
I'd go with your list Slide. but I'd swap out Chic for The Cars. Not a big fan of disco more in favor of the rock bands. oh and maybe Janet for Chaka. I like them both equally
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2015 16:05:19 GMT -5
I'd be cool with the Cars, Chaka, Steve Miller, Los Lobos and the Spinners getting in, but I've learned you just can't trust what the hall voters will do, which includes the artists from previous years. Once they're inducted, they get to vote too, and from what I've heard, have some influence on the nominating committee. Still, every year, the list somehow always seems to be a rather weak list as far as the issue of influence is concerned. I think the hall should be required to put out a list of artists their nominees have influenced. The criteria shouldn't be they influenced the critics, whose opinions are about half a penny per trillion, basically worthless (and I'm trying to insult them as best as I can), but I think that's who the artists influenced and no one else at all on some of the choices. I'd be rather surprise if Chicago gets in as I recall the rock critics were especially nasty to them at times, referring to them as corporate rockers and faceless rockers, despite the fact they were popular with many. I wasn't much of a fan but I'd like to see them get in just the same, if only to irritate the hell out of the critics.
Same with Yes, although the critics' barbs was more about their music being art rock or prog rock, which was kind of funny coming from the critics as they were the ones who instigated the whole bloody worthless idea that every rock song should be a work of art. It was worthless because not every song could be a gem, and if it were possible, how could one tell without something to judge it for comparison? Rock gems were the rarities, the jewels that shined but that in no way made the lesser songs bad. The gems allowed you to appreciate the talent it took to come up with something good and even appreciate the lesser ones more, as it showed the listener just how hard it can be to be creative and have to deal with the pressure of being able to knock the ball out of the park every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 10, 2015 18:34:24 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
Progressive rock (or "art rock") really gets a bad rap from critics because of its alleged "pretensions" and the classical influences. Admittedly, some of it is kind of on the pretentious side (personally, I find a lot of Pink Floyd to be mind-numbing after a while), but again, as so often happens with critics, they're so full of it on this point, painting an entire sub-genre with a very broad brush.
It's a sham the Moody Blues were passed over again even for consideration, because if there were a progressive-rock band that belonged in there, it would be the band behind "Nights In White Satin".
|
|
|
|
Post by Belle on Oct 11, 2015 0:22:30 GMT -5
As of right now, these are the results after I voted--the top 5 also reflect my 5 votes.  |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 11, 2015 6:42:52 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: Progressive rock (or "art rock") really gets a bad rap from critics because of its alleged "pretensions" and the classical influences. Admittedly, some of it is kind of on the pretentious side (personally, I find a lot of Pink Floyd to be mind-numbing after a while), but again, as so often happens with critics, they're so full of it on this point, painting an entire sub-genre with a very broad brush. It's a sham the Moody Blues were passed over again even for consideration, because if there were a progressive-rock band that belonged in there, it would be the band behind "Nights In White Satin". Pink Floyd definitely belongs in the HOF imo. Arguably more than any other prog-rockers. Some of their stuff is boring, but their best albums are exceptional imo. I don't know the Moody Blues well enough to have an informed opinion. Yes has some good tunes, but overall they don't really do it for me. King Crimson was a progrock band I really like. Jethro Tull are on the basis of their 70's stuff also worth considering. A lot of prog rock doesn't live up to it's grand ideas though, so for that reason I can't really blame "the critics" for not liking it. But (as always) - there are exceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Oct 11, 2015 7:03:46 GMT -5
I'd be cool with the Cars, Chaka, Steve Miller, Los Lobos and the Spinners getting in, but I've learned you just can't trust what the hall voters will do, which includes the artists from previous years. Once they're inducted, they get to vote too, and from what I've heard, have some influence on the nominating committee. Still, every year, the list somehow always seems to be a rather weak list as far as the issue of influence is concerned. I think the hall should be required to put out a list of artists their nominees have influenced. The criteria shouldn't be they influenced the critics, whose opinions are about half a penny per trillion, basically worthless (and I'm trying to insult them as best as I can), but I think that's who the artists influenced and no one else at all on some of the choices. I'd be rather surprise if Chicago gets in as I recall the rock critics were especially nasty to them at times, referring to them as corporate rockers and faceless rockers, despite the fact they were popular with many. I wasn't much of a fan but I'd like to see them get in just the same, if only to irritate the hell out of the critics. Same with Yes, although the critics' barbs was more about their music being art rock or prog rock, which was kind of funny coming from the critics as they were the ones who instigated the whole bloody worthless idea that every rock song should be a work of art. It was worthless because not every song could be a gem, and if it were possible, how could one tell without something to judge it for comparison? Rock gems were the rarities, the jewels that shined but that in no way made the lesser songs bad. The gems allowed you to appreciate the talent it took to come up with something good and even appreciate the lesser ones more, as it showed the listener just how hard it can be to be creative and have to deal with the pressure of being able to knock the ball out of the park every time. I liked the early years of the HOF. Perhaps the (roughly speaking) first 10-15 years of when it existed. Sure, there also were arguments of "why didn't he or she make it?" But the ones that got in were all great and "important." As of late it's become completely random though. Literally ANYONE has a shot. As a result I have completely lost whatever minor interest I had in the thing. Plus there are plenty of ifs and buts about the type of artists that are even eligble. The major blues guys all get in for their influence on rock'n'roll. No problem there. But how about the major country and folk acts who also had a major impact on rock'n'roll? And it also raises the question of, "what even IS rock'n'roll as defined by the HOF?" There are a lot of acts in there that nobody would consider rock'n'roll. For sure, once we move on to the present century very few of the inductees will be rock'n'roll in any shape or form. And then you have, say, Fairport Convention and Richard & Linda Thompson who are (and rightly so) real critics darlings and they ARE rock acts. But since they are folkrock and not bluesrock it's apparently the wrong kind of rock for this HOF. Plus the fact that they haven't sold millions of records, but neither did some of the other inductees. So I find all of it mystifying really. Can't make heads or tails of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Goldie on Oct 11, 2015 9:57:46 GMT -5
Eventually everyone will have to be let in because Rock technically is dead. They have to keep reclassifying it and will do so until it is so watered down it will be meaningless. My guess is once the Rock Hall of Fame Building needs replacement this whole thing will be over and everything will go to a Music Museum like the one in Phoenix.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 11, 2015 12:08:40 GMT -5
Progressive rock (or "art rock") really gets a bad rap from critics because of its alleged "pretensions" and the classical influences. Admittedly, some of it is kind of on the pretentious side (personally, I find a lot of Pink Floyd to be mind-numbing after a while), but again, as so often happens with critics, they're so full of it on this point, painting an entire sub-genre with a very broad brush. It's a sham the Moody Blues were passed over again even for consideration, because if there were a progressive-rock band that belonged in there, it would be the band behind "Nights In White Satin". Some of the progressive/art rock bands are pretentious but many have made some truly great music over the years. As you say, you can't paint an entire sub-genre with a very broad brush, but that is exactly what the critics do. Critics themselves are very pretentious for the most, in thinking that what they write is of great importance to music and to listeners. It's not, it's just their opinion and they have the fortune of being employed by a newspaper or magazine where they get paid to offer you their exaggerated opinions. As for the Moody Blues, it's not only a sham they were passed over again, it's a disgrace. Their critics dismiss them as pretentious but as usual, the critics are off the mark. The Moodies managed to blend rock and classical together extremely well, better than what other art rock bands did, and they managed to be listenable. They didn't go for the extremely long songs of the ten minutes plus variety. And they also managed to occasionally do a message song but never in an overt and heavy handed way. The Moodies being passed over again (along with some other long ignored acts that are worthy of the honor) while other acts who are questionable at best as far as meeting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria is another example of the hall ignoring and making a mockery of its own rules. Those on the nominating committee need to be replaced by saner heads. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 11, 2015 12:52:18 GMT -5
I liked the early years of the HOF. Perhaps the (roughly speaking) first 10-15 years of when it existed. Sure, there also were arguments of "why didn't he or she make it?" But the ones that got in were all great and "important." As of late it's become completely random though. Literally ANYONE has a shot.
Not really. I've sometimes thought that literally anyone has a shot but there are still some major acts that have been excluded by the hall and won't be considered for inclusion because of the personal prejudices of the nominating committee. The major criteria is that any artist or band must've been an influential act on other musicians (but on the critics more realistically), but the one thing you never see is the hall listing the other solo artists and bands their nominees influenced, which I think should be required. Every year, I look at their nominees and think the hall would be hard pressed to come up with a list.
As a result I have completely lost whatever minor interest I had in the thing. Plus there are plenty of ifs and buts about the type of artists that are even eligble. The major blues guys all get in for their influence on rock'n'roll. No problem there. But how about the major country and folk acts who also had a major impact on rock'n'roll?
Country artists get in, either by being nominated and being inducted (Johnny Cash, et al) or as being an influence on the genre (Hank Williams, et al). Folk acts are another matter. James Taylor and Joni Mitchell, and the Mamas and the Papas, all of whom I considered to be more folk acts than rock artists, are in the hall, while many other folk based acts, like Fairpoint Convention, Gordon Lightfoot, Melanie, Jim Croce and John Denver, are not. As far as I know, Judy Collins is not in the hall, nor are any English and Canadian folk singers. Meanwhile, the hall continues to find every reason and excuse to induct another obscure Motown act or Motown-related act or an artist who was a critic's darling but not a fan favorite.
And it also raises the question of, "what even IS rock'n'roll as defined by the HOF?" There are a lot of acts in there that nobody would consider rock'n'roll. For sure, once we move on to the present century very few of the inductees will be rock'n'roll in any shape or form. And then you have, say, Fairport Convention and Richard & Linda Thompson who are (and rightly so) real critics darlings and they ARE rock acts.
You answered your own question! The nominating committee members of the R&RHoF are the self-appointed judges of who or what is rock and roll and who or what is not. Their personal biases and prejudices are not subject to what anyone else may have to say about the matter and they think they are like the pope, infallible.
But since they are folkrock and not bluesrock it's apparently the wrong kind of rock for this HOF. Plus the fact that they haven't sold millions of records, but neither did some of the other inductees. So I find all of it mystifying really. Can't make heads or tails of it.
Again, the major baloney - er um, criteria - is that the artist or band nominated and inducted
must have been a major influence on other artists. And it's hard to fathom how some of the acts were nominated and inducted. Patti Smith was a critic's darling more than a major fan favorite, and who got in probably on the basis of cowriting "Because the Night" with major critic's darling Bruce Springsteen, who critics see as rock and roll's savior. As Erik has also pointed
out, they are from the east coast, and that seems to be another unwritten criteria.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 11, 2015 13:10:15 GMT -5
Quote by jhar26:
In terms of folk music acts, and I believe in the context this would include both the Brits (Fairport Convention, etc.) and the American folk music revivalists of the 1950s and 1960s like Peter, Paul, and Mary, I think the influence is quite significant, but it's an area that many critics don't focus on because, to me, it still feels like they want to continue the notion that rock and roll has only ever had its roots in black music forms, and that is not the entire story.
In terms of country acts--well, we're into an even more gray area. If I had a choice of putting in an artist that in many ways would still fall under the "country" banner, then it would be Emmylou Harris. Including her short time with Gram Parsons and a lifelong friendship with Linda, Emmy's albums, like those of Linda's, set the stage for the Americana and roots-rock movements of the last twenty-five years at least insofar as the womenfolk are concerned. Also, her albums of the 70s found a huge amount of appeal among rock and roll fans because they stuck to country music's traditional music spirit without sounding judgmental or moralistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 20, 2015 15:33:13 GMT -5
There's only one choice for me and it's Janet Jackson... Miss You Much
Rhythm Nation
Escapade
Black Cat
Twenty Foreplay
Got 'Til It's Gone
Rock With U
Feedback
...just a few of the many great songs by Miss Jackson. 
|
|
