Sign in to follow this  
jakeem

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's Class of 2019

133 posts in this topic

Well, dagnab it, I don't knew if this is new, but Vulture is now owned by New York Magazine, from which a friend of mine sometimes sends me links, and between the stories he sent me and my occasional time on Vulture, I've reached my monthly limit to read anything on the Internet owned by New York Magazine unless I get a free trial subscription. I feel like this is new. I used to read Vulture all the time without reaching some monthly limit.

So, I can't even look at this list until next month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

So, I can't even look at this list until next month.

Top Ten (most worthy)

  1. Chuck Berry
  2. The Beatles
  3. Bob Dylan
  4. Elvis Presley
  5. James Brown
  6. Prince
  7. Ramones
  8. Nirvana
  9. Buddy Holly
  10. Muddy Waters

Bottom Ten (least worthy)

  1. Bon Jovi (bottom of the list, #214)
  2. Queen
  3. Journey
  4. Chicago 
  5. Rush
  6. KISS
  7. The Moody Blues
  8. N.W.A.
  9. Joan Jett & the Blackhearts
  10. Red Hot Chili Peppers

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 5:07 PM, Vautrin said:

Hey, I actually recognize them all. Whoever winds up in the Hall, my favorites would be

Roxy Music and Radiohead.

 

My favorite Roxy track from my favorite Roxy album!

Roxy_Music_-_For_Your_Pleasure.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timberic said:

My favorite Roxy track from my favorite Roxy album!

Roxy_Music_-_For_Your_Pleasure.png

Great song title too. All the Roxy Music albums are good, but if I had to pick one

I'd go with Siren.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 5:58 PM, Vautrin said:

Great song title too. All the Roxy Music albums are good, but if I had to pick one

I'd go with Siren.

Siren is great as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timberic said:

Siren is great as well.

I think Siren is one of the better know RM albums to Americans, though that is not

the reason it's my favorite. As you likely know, Roxy Music never did very well in

the U.S. as compared to the U.K. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 9:30 PM, LawrenceA said:

Top Ten (most worthy)

  1. Chuck Berry
  2. The Beatles
  3. Bob Dylan
  4. Elvis Presley
  5. James Brown
  6. Prince
  7. Ramones
  8. Nirvana
  9. Buddy Holly
  10. Muddy Waters

Bottom Ten (least worthy)

  1. Bon Jovi (bottom of the list, #214)
  2. Queen
  3. Journey
  4. Chicago 
  5. Rush
  6. KISS
  7. The Moody Blues
  8. N.W.A.
  9. Joan Jett & the Blackhearts
  10. Red Hot Chili Peppers

 

Interesting lists.

What follows is my opinion only-I'm open to hear your debate/POV:

The Beatles bore me for some reason. When I hear recordings from the era I'm much more impressed with The Beach Boys contribution to R&R . The innovation came from within the band, not outside the band ie George Martin for the Beatles. That said, the Beatles had the incredible lyricist in Lennon and simple, engaging tunesmith  McCartney, strong musician Harrison & equalizing Starr-a very STRONG combination!

I find Dylan a poseur, but I see& understand his contribution to R&R history.

Is Prince really that innovative? I'm not as familiar with his body of work aside from a couple of blousy blues & pop songs.

I do think Queen was wholly innovative in approach, including having outstanding, strong members. I was more of a soft rock kind of gal when Queen hit the airwaves and I was quickly won over. People are still amazed at my love for this band, it's kind of out of character.

But Queen was another very talented British band with a dash of "Birmingham Sound" classic influence. I love Mercury's "show tunes", May's incredible compositions & Deacon's anthems. Plus Queen pleases the masses, with a string of great hits people sing today. The bottom? Really?

While the Moody Blues are just ok to me, I see them as a successful Birmingham influence to R&R. But I absolutely think Electric Light Orchestra epitomizes the point much more completely.

Am I off in my opinion?

Edited by TikiSoo
Oy mixed up Manchester & Birmingham!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Am I off in my opinion?

I agree with most of what you say. Lennon/MCartney admitted in the past to playing catch-up to the Beach Boys, and that the two groups (or more precisely, Lennon/MacCartney and Brian Wilson) pushed each other to try bigger things.

Prince is someone whose music I was never crazy about, but I know I'm in the distinct minority on that. I respect his musical talent, though.

I really don't have any strong opinions on Bob Dylan. An interesting lyricist, a terrible singer, a mercurial persona.

To reiterate, those lists that you quoted were not my choices, but are those from the previously mentioned article/website. I personally would never have Queen, Rush, the Moody Blues, or Red Hot Chili Peppers in my "worst" list. Rush and Queen are among my favorite acts. The rest I'm not particularly fond of, and I really dislike KISS (probably the bottom choice for me, even more than Bon Jovi). However, it seems most of the lower part of that full, 214-act list, are bands/performers who have smaller, but very devoted followings. I think most, if not all, of the near-universally liked acts were inducted a decade ago or earlier. Nearly all of the acts getting in now have just as many detractors as they do die-hard fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

I agree with most of what you say. Lennon/MCartney admitted in the past to playing catch-up to the Beach Boys, and that the two groups (or more precisely, Lennon/MacCartney and Brian Wilson) pushed each other to try bigger things.

Wilson added some songwriting innovations that influenced John and Paul but from musician's standpoint the Beach Boys were weak.   Really weak;  This is why the Wrecking Crew did some of playing on the studio recordings.

Also,  after 1966 and Pet-Sounds the Beach Boys were mostly has-beens as it relates to creativity.

 

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that guy really didn't like the Chili Peppers. Of course these things are

subjective and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but GFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 8:21 AM, TikiSoo said:

Interesting lists.

What follows is my opinion only-I'm open to hear your debate/POV:

The Beatles bore me for some reason. When I hear recordings from the era I'm much more impressed with The Beach Boys contribution to R&R . The innovation came from within the band, not outside the band ie George Martin for the Beatles. That said, the Beatles had the incredible lyricist in Lennon and simple, engaging tunesmith  McCartney, strong musician Harrison & equalizing Starr-a very STRONG combination!

I find Dylan a poseur, but I see& understand his contribution to R&R history.

Is Prince really that innovative? I'm not as familiar with his body of work aside from a couple of blousy blues & pop songs.

I do think Queen was wholly innovative in approach, including having outstanding, strong members. I was more of a soft rock kind of gal when Queen hit the airwaves and I was quickly won over. People are still amazed at my love for this band, it's kind of out of character.

But Queen was another very talented British band with a dash of "Birmingham Sound" classic influence. I love Mercury's "show tunes", May's incredible compositions & Deacon's anthems. Plus Queen pleases the masses, with a string of great hits people sing today. The bottom? Really?

While the Moody Blues are just ok to me, I see them as a successful Birmingham influence to R&R. But I absolutely think Electric Light Orchestra epitomizes the point much more completely.

Am I off in my opinion?

This is why I really don't do lists.  At least not to rank my own opinions on things.  Not that I don't value my own opinions on things or don't believe I have great taste, but when it comes down to it, it is a lot of work.

Anyhow, you could say my thoughts on this are basically close to LaurenceA's.  For me I like the Moody Blues and it pains me to see them at someone else's bottom of the barrel.  Also the top shelf ones are mostly just obvious choices, someone else might pick some different obvious choices.  At the same time my tastes can drift off into the Avant Garde and I just get bored with the ordinary. So big whoop.  I had the same kind of reaction to the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame induction process, not that a museum or the concept itself isn't a great idea.  For me, the "Top Whatever" lists themselves just require suspension of disbelief at times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

I really dislike KISS (probably the bottom choice for me, even more than Bon Jovi)

Well I was very involved and well read in popular music during the 70's-80's. I recall when KISS came out they were described as (paraphrasing) 4 guys from business school who played in a band for fun...with a plan. They would create KISS with several goals in mind: sell a million records, tour stadiums and make a movie (!). The plan was to invest the scads of money they made, then DROP OUT of SIGHT and go on with their lives living off their investments. Hence the face covering make up.

The band never had any intention of being great musically, which makes me wonder why the R&R HOF actually honors them with ANYTHING..

Similar concept to THE RESIDENTS, where the founding members wore hospital scrubs & masks to cover their identity. Personnel changes often happened, but THEY take their music seriously. Their odd, but I love 'em.

BTW back then I once took large format photos of KISS & traced their faces without the make up. My drawings were pretty accurate representations of their natural faces, which we all are familiar with today.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 8:30 PM, LawrenceA said:

Top Ten (most worthy)

  1. Chuck Berry
  2. The Beatles
  3. Bob Dylan
  4. Elvis Presley
  5. James Brown
  6. Prince
  7. Ramones
  8. Nirvana
  9. Buddy Holly
  10. Muddy Waters

Bottom Ten (least worthy)

  1. Bon Jovi (bottom of the list, #214)
  2. Queen
  3. Journey
  4. Chicago 
  5. Rush
  6. KISS
  7. The Moody Blues
  8. N.W.A.
  9. Joan Jett & the Blackhearts
  10. Red Hot Chili Peppers

 

Looking at this list for the top 10 or even this discussion about the list, I'm surprised not to see a rock and roll group that I was a fan of in the 1960s. They were popular, but not as popular as the Beatles or the Beach Boys. However their work was on a high technical level in my opinion. In other words what I'm trying to say is that their musicianship as a group was superior to the Beatles. And their songwriting ability was good but not as prolific or as diverse as the Beatles, of course.. 

Although I'm no longer a fan of their later work, I still think that they would deserve recognition for the 60s and onward.

This group is known as the Rolling Stones or just The Stones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Looking at this list for the top 10 or even this discussion about the list, I'm surprised not to see a rock and roll group that I was a fan of in the 1960s. They were popular, but not as popular as the Beatles or the Beach Boys. However their work was on a high technical level in my opinion. In other words what I'm trying to say is that their musicianship as a group was superior to the Beatles. And their songwriting ability was good but not as prolific or as diverse as the Beatles, of course.. 

Although I'm no longer a fan of their later work, I still think that they would deserve recognition for the 60s and onward.

This group is known as the Rolling Stones or just The Stones.

The Rolling Stones were listed at #15.    Note that Stones songs are staples for informal rock jam sessions because they are simple and easy to play.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

They were popular, but not as popular as the Beatles or the Beach Boys.

Boy, I would argue the contention that they weren't as popular as the Beach Boys. Even in the US, the Stones had 23 Top 10 hits and eight #1's, while the Beach Boys had 15 and four, respectively. The Stones had nine #1 albums in the US, and the Beach Boys had one!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points made & good discussions!

I only mildly liked the Stones, they never really grabbed me. But I know lots of people who follow them strongly and agree with their importance/inclusion in R&R history. And that's what's great about music-it touches people differently, yet there's a few a large majority agrees on. (just like movies)

It's also interesting discussing who's "great", "noteworthy", "influential", etc. disregarding personal opinion. Like them or not, most should admit the top 10 on that list are all important to the history of R&R.

It gets more interesting discussing the "least worthy" on that bottom 10 list! Try discussing music leaving out your personal opinion....it's tough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

Looking at this list for the top 10 or even this discussion about the list, I'm surprised not to see a rock and roll group that I was a fan of in the 1960s. They were popular, but not as popular as the Beatles or the Beach Boys.

This group is known as the Rolling Stones or just The Stones.

I too am surprised at you.  Where WERE you when I mentioned( several times) that there were fierce rivalries between The Beatles' fans and The Rolling Stones' fans when I was in Jr. high (when both came into prominence)?  Why, girls got to biting and scratching, and guys broke into FIST FIGHTS over who they thought was the "better" or "best".  

I certainly DON'T recall anything like that happening over The Beach Boys and some other band!  Probably though because nobody else came CLOSE!  ;)

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

I too am surprised at you.  Where WERE you when I mentioned( several times) that there were fierce rivalries between The Beatles' fans and The Rolling Stones' fans when I was in Jr. high (when both came into prominence)?  Why, girls got to biting and scratching, and guys broke into FIST FIGHTS over who they thought was the "better" or "best".  

I certainly DON'T recall anything like that happening over The Beach Boys and some other band!  Probably though because nobody else came CLOSE!  ;)

Sepiatone

 Where I was in junior high school, girls did not fight. LOL

The big contest was between whether or not we liked Paul McCartney more than Mike Smith of the Dave Clark Five in 64.

But I do remember in later years that we had serious discussions about Brian Jones and Charlie Watts, but it wasn't like we were being " unfaithful " to The Beatles or The Beach Boys.

Possibly people in the midwest simply have a more Live and Let Live style of looking at things.

 We were all even crazy about the Animals.

The only competition was that within your girl group of friends there could not be more than one girl who liked this or that group member.

I had a best friend and we both loved Ringo.

So, we came to a truce and we just agreed to share him. And I think Ringo would have liked that too.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was a little competition between Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman as to who

could look more uninterested and bored.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also surprised that the Rolling Stones were not in the top ten. And I am pleased to join Lawrence and MovieCollector in liking the Moody Blues. I don't know much of Rush's work, but "Fly by Night" is a stupendous song. Though I'm not the biggest fan of Queen, you don't have to like "Bohemian Rhapsody" to recognize a level of ambition and creativity and risk-taking greater than most of their contemporaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

 

Possibly people in the midwest simply have a more Live and Let Live style of looking at things.

 

:o

And just where the HELL do you think Michigan IS? :blink:  :D 

Oh, sure.  The DAVE CLARK 5 and THE ANIMALS did get some attention ( as did most of the "British Invasion" bands. The WHO, HERMAN'S HERMITS, GEORGIE FAME etc.) . The only thing most of us could agree on was not having much(if any) use for GERRY and THE PACEMAKERS.  ;)

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

:o

And just where the HELL do you think Michigan IS? :blink:  :D 

Oh, sure.  The DAVE CLARK 5 and THE ANIMALS did get some attention ( as did most of the "British Invasion" bands. The WHO, HERMAN'S HERMITS, GEORGIE FAME etc.) . The only thing most of us could agree on was not having much(if any) use for GERRY and THE PACEMAKERS.  ;)

Sepiatone

Well, perhaps I should have said the Midwest in the more bucolic, rural setting.

Because I was under the impression that you were outside of Detroit.....

In the Great Plains, in Northeast Kansas things went a lot slower and more Leave it to Beaver there in my days.

 

 BTW--The boys certainly did occasionally have fights in my junior high school,

but it was over girls or some other personal slight, and certainly not about some foreign British Invasion rock groups. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The daughter of some friends of my parents was an absolute nut for Herman's

Hermits. So when we visited them I had to endure a session of HH in her bedroom,

which was filled with all things HH. That was enough of HH to last the rest of my life.

I don't remember anyone fighting in school about the British Invasion bands.

They were more likely to fight over sports teams, though even that was infrequent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time Peter Noone and Herman's Hermits hit, I was too old to be that interested.

But the teenyboppers just went crazy over Peter Noone.

And the parents really liked him a lot too.

My father just loathed Mick Jagger.  LOL

 

1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

The daughter of some friends of my parents was an absolute nut for Herman's

Hermits. So when we visited them I had to endure a session of HH in her bedroom,

which was filled with all things HH. That was enough of HH to last the rest of my life.

I don't remember anyone fighting in school about the British Invasion bands.

They were more likely to fight over sports teams, though even that was infrequent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

By the time Peter Noone and Herman's Hermits hit, I was too old to be that interested.

But the teenyboppers just went crazy over Peter Noone.

And the parents really liked him a lot too.

My father just loathed Mick Jagger.  LOL

 

 

Yes, I can understand why any mom and dad preferred a cute cuddly guy like Peter Noone to

a rough looking type like Mike Jagger. I never worried about my father hating rock stars. He

didn't even know who Mick Jagger was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us