Yearly Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Debate Thread

I did love the original lineup, and if they ever toured they would fill stadiums. Guns 'N' Roses was a huge Rolling Stone band. They were "The hair band with musical INTEGRITY!" I believe Chinese Democracy, 85 percent of which is utter garbage, 10 percent of which is complete garbage, and five percent of which actually sounds OK, got a good review from Rolling Stone.

Wenner and friends can put them in on first ballot - as they will Nirvana in a few years - and then say "See! We put in music our kids listen to! Man, what crazy distorted guitars!!!! We're EDGY!!!!!"

The Rock Hall of Fame is just a place for Wenner and friends to party. I question the legitimacy of a so-called "Hall of Fame" that is just a small group of people reminiscing about bands they as individuals happen to like. I've said before there are bands I don't personally like, but that should get heavy consideration for a rock "Hall of Fame."

I know a lot of dudes like to get all excited and scream about how much they as individuals think a band - OK, Rush - sucks. But if you don't wonder about a "Hall of Fame" that is based strictly on the "Hey, I Liked those GUYS!!!" fandorkism of a small group, then you're more interested in running your mouth than you are in seeing a respectable "Hall of Fame."

 

I would agree with Journey, but only if the drummer shows up in the shirt that says "foosball" on it from the Seperate Ways video. He has som explaining to do.

 

Was Abba a big Rolling Stone band? I really can't recall, but I do agree that any band that was a Rolling Stone poster child usually goes in with ease. Bands that were big with Cream readers have not.

 

Oh, please.

Like the argument for Rush extends beyond "Hey, I liked those guys!"

 

Music is subjective. This is the argument for any group.

You cannot argue Rush's expertice at their instruments, though.

 

I know it's a waste of time because you've been more than rigid about this, but:

Incorrect. Longevity has to count for something, as does continually producing new material for an entire career, and having a strong stable of fans that means you can tour every couple of years - on NEW material - and draw well.

It's more than just "being around" and "lingering." They're not playing state fairs. The new albums aren't in bargain bins. But again, YOU and Jann Wenner's little posse don't like them, which makes them completely unworthy of consideration.

What a perfectly above-board way to run a "Hall of Fame."

 

Yes, it's me and Jann's posse.

Critics -- and not just those in Rolling Stone, or somehow hypnotized by the all-powerful Jann -- have universally HATED Rush for decades. That doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be in, but there better be some other compelling reason to put them in. And sorry, there isn't. Nice longevity, decent record sales, impressive technical proficiency. Jamie Moyer.

There are bands I love that will never sniff the hall of fame. There are bands I can't stand that absolutely belong in the hall of fame. I manage to deal with that without sticking pins in a Jann Wenner doll.

 

Finally, a breakthrough.

 

And to clarify... Rush ain't one of them.

 

Again, in YOUR opinion.

Critics mean less than nothing. They were fawning over Chinese Democracy.

 

KISS - Yes
Depeche Mode - Way more popular than I would have ever thought, but no
The Cure - No, but "Friday I'm In Love" is a hall of fame song
Chicago - I can't stand them but you could make a good case
Hall and Oates - Yes
Rush - Yes
Alice Cooper - Yes, absolute fucking travesty that he wasn't in years ago
Moody Blues - If Dave Clark and the Ventures are in, why not.
E.L.O. - Yes
Cheap Trick - Yes
Bad Company - No
Peter Frampton - No
Heart - No
T-Rex - No
Bon Jovi - No, but they'll get in
Journey - No
Foreigner - No
Public Enemy - No
Red Hot Chili Peppers - No