hall of fame

[Thomas Nassiff]

i read a blog today about which of today's current bands have a chance to get inducted into the hall of fame in the future. here's the link to the blog from altpress.... http://www.altpress.com/specials/blo...y-facebook.cfm (http://www.altpress.com/specials/blog/tim/2009/04/can-i-embed-my-plaque-on-my-facebook.cfm)

although i didnt agree with all of what he said its a very interesting topic, to think of bands that you listen to today being forever enshrined with zeppelin and the beatles and elvis and so many more.

so post on who you think we listen to today will one day be inducted into the hall of fame....this shouldnt be about your favorite band, but who is actually big enough and relevant enough and important enough to have the chance to be inducted when they are eligible.

[AndrewIcex]

That is interesting, I never thought about that... the article had some interesting things to say too... Green Day seems fitting, and Blink seems fitting too... but not on the same scale musically as many of the bands that are already in the HOF, more along the lines of what they have done for the music community with their influence that will push any of those bands over the edge.

[Neo Cassady]

Green Day is the only one of those bands I see getting in.

[x togepi x]

the rock and roll hall of fame is a fucking joke.

[Volo]

the rock and roll hall of fame is a fucking joke.True, but so is Alternative Press, so it sort of goes hand in hand.

[anthonydarko]

The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame has no credibility to it's name.

[aoftbsten]

Green Day is the only band I can really think would make it to that. Probably Blink and maybe The All American Rejects.

[Genuma]

My Chemical Romance in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

[aoftbsten]

Actually by that point they'll probably just start including any genre. To bridge the gap they'll probably do Lil Wayne since he's releasing this "rock" album. It probably won't come out till then anyway.

[x togepi x]

they already include a wide variety of genres.

[Regards]

Want a good joke?

Madonna is in the Rock & Roll hall of fame, and Rush isn't.

[11:11]

Want a good joke?

Madonna is in the Rock & Roll hall of fame, and Rush isn't.
That's kinda disgusting.

[Thomas Nassiff]

the hall isnt a joke, it has lost some credibility but its still really prestigious and its a huge honor to get in. if it was a joke then why cant anybody think of more than a handful of today's bands that have a shot of getting in?

i think green day and blink are as close to in as we have nowadays...MCR gets in if they keep making cds like the black parade. i cant see why the all american rejects would even be considered.

[Thomas Nassiff]

That is interesting, I never thought about that... the article had some interesting things to say too... Green Day seems fitting, and Blink seems fitting too... but not on the same scale musically as many of the bands that are already in the HOF, more along the lines of what they have done for the music community with their influence that will push any of those bands over the edge.

but by the time these bands are eligible for induction into the hall they will have had done much more for the community. green day is already fairly politically active. not so much for blink or MCR though..

[x togepi x]

the hall isnt a joke, it has lost some credibility but its still really prestigious and its a huge honor to get in. if it was a joke then why cant anybody think of more than a handful of today's bands that have a shot of getting in?

i think green day and blink are as close to in as we have nowadays...MCR gets in if they keep making cds like the black parade. i cant see why the all american rejects would even be considered.

It's a joke because the hall has time and time again picked big acts over ones that were actually innovative in the earlier years of rock and roll. it's a joke because it tends to be skewed more towards the taste of the people who run it than the will of the people in general. it's a joke because it tends to ignore the underground and subcultural impact of certain kinds of music. it waters down music to the lowest common denominator.

just because it's really hard to get in doesn't negate the fact that it's a joke.

[thespearkid]

the hall isnt a joke, it has lost some credibility but its still really prestigious and its a huge honor to get in. if it was a joke then why cant anybody think of more than a handful of today's bands that have a shot of getting in?

Because it's more of a political/publicity thing than anything else. Johnny Rotten summed it up better, although much less eloquently.

"Next to the Sex Pistols, rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain. Your museum. Urine in wine. We're not coming. We're not your monkeys. If you voted for us, hope you noted your reasons. Your anonymous as judges but your still music industry people. We're not coming. Your not paying attention. Outside the shit-stream is a real Sex Pistol."

[Thomas Nassiff]

well in the hall's defense, it cant choose underground bands. although they are very influential, these bands dont have the exposure necessary to be selected. the hall has to choose bands that EVERYONE knows and have been in the public eye both musically and with community things. as unfair as this might be, after 20+ years of existence (the length of time required to be eligible for induction?) a band, if they have even been together or relevant for so long, shouldnt be much of an underground band anymore if their music is hall-worthy.

you cant call it a joke, its like just taking the most prestigious part of some people's careers and shoving it down the toilet.

[c_rob2700]

It's a joke because the hall has time and time again picked big acts over ones that were actually innovative in the earlier years of rock and roll. it's a joke because it tends to be skewed more towards the taste of the people who run it than the will of the people in general. it's a joke because it tends to ignore the underground and subcultural impact of certain kinds of music. it waters down music to the lowest common denominator.

just because it's really hard to get in doesn't negate the fact that it's a joke.
This is 100% spot on

[Regards]

the hall isnt a joke, it has lost some credibility but its still really prestigious and its a huge honor to get in. if it was a joke then why cant anybody think of more than a handful of today's bands that have a shot of getting in?

i think green day and blink are as close to in as we have nowadays...MCR gets in if they keep making cds like the black parade. i cant see why the all american rejects would even be considered.
See:
Want a good joke?

Madonna is in the Rock & Roll hall of fame, and Rush isn't.

[c_rob2700]

Also, I lol'd at Alternative Press' list. Read's like what my 13 year old self would've thought was HoF potential. The whole organization is a fucking joke

[x togepi x]

well in the hall's defense, it cant choose underground bands. although they are very influential, these bands dont have the exposure necessary to be selected. the hall has to choose bands that EVERYONE knows and have been in the public eye both musically and with community things. as unfair as this might be, after 20+ years of existence (the length of time required to be eligible for induction?) a band, if they have even been together or relevant for so long, shouldnt be much of an underground band anymore if their music is hall-worthy.

you cant call it a joke, its like just taking the most prestigious part of some people's careers and shoving it down the toilet.

this standard waters down music. Fugazi is just as important to music as a ton of the bands that made it in there, both in terms of cultural relevancy and musical influence, but they'll never make it in because of that stupid standard.


It's a joke. If being put into a sham hall of fame is the most prestigious part of your musical career then you don't deserve to be in it.

[Mibabalou]

thursday

[Thomas Nassiff]

i agree with you on fugazi. unfortunately there are many deserving bands who wont be put in. rush will get in eventually, madonna got in based on her ludicrous popularity. im not defending the fact that madonna should have gotten in and i dont agree with rush not being in but what im saying is that there is so much music out there that its unrealistic for the hall to be able to put in every influential band. they end up putting the most well known ones because thats whats available for everyone to see. whether its right or not, well thats an opinion thing but i cant agree with you that its a joke. the best artists to ever play are in there; i.e the beatles, elvis, zeppelin, clapton, blahblahblah you could go on for ages.

[Thomas Nassiff]

no one likes alt press. i definitely dont usually agree with their columnists or bloggers but its a decent source for news and upcoming releases. this is better though

[x togepi x]

i agree with you on fugazi. unfortunately there are many deserving bands who wont be put in. rush will get in eventually, madonna got in based on her ludicrous popularity. im not defending the fact that madonna should have gotten in and i dont agree with rush not being in but what im saying is that there is so much music out there that its unrealistic for the hall to be able to put in every influential band. they end up putting the most well known ones because thats whats available for everyone to see. whether its right or not, well thats an opinion thing but i cant agree with you that its a joke. the best artists to ever play are in there; i.e the beatles, elvis, zeppelin, clapton, blahblahblah you could go on for ages.

like i said, watered down music. those are all safe choices.

[Thomas Nassiff]

like i said, watered down music. those are all safe choices.

those are all some of the most epic bands or musicians ever! you cant deny any of them! the reason theyre "safe" is because theyre timeless! the kind of music that deserves a recognition such as the hall of fame..

[DejaNew]

Want a good joke?

Madonna is in the Rock & Roll hall of fame, and Rush isn't.
Ewwwwwwwww.

[x togepi x]

those are all some of the most epic bands or musicians ever! you cant deny any of them! the reason theyre "safe" is because theyre timeless! the kind of music that deserves a recognition such as the hall of fame..

i'm not denying them. i'm saying they're safe choices which can't be used to justify whether the rock and roll hall of fame is a joke or not. having a rock and roll hall of fame without the beatles would be like having a baseball hall of fame without babe ruth. You don't decide the legitimacy of the hall based on safe choices that everyone's going to agree with, you decide it based on who's left out and why or more contraversial picks.

besides all the reasons i listed earlier as to why it's a joke (that you didn't respond to by the way), you're also forgetting a key fact: that nobody who decides who's in the hall is a musician. that's completely ridiculous because it leaves out so many key musical figures that might not have become super popular.

[x togepi x]

and madonna should be in the rock and roll hall of fame (since it's not really based around rock music). she did a lot of innovative things with her videos as well as provided a strong role model of female musicians.

[SanePsychotic]

Green Day is the only one of the bands listed that have a chance of getting in. I'm okay with that.

[Thomas Nassiff]

well what we have is a group iof judges who vote themselves who gets in. in my opinion its not a joke and the people in the hall are all very talented so they back up the no joke status. on the other hand you have some extremely influential and innovative musicians who did not get in. ultimately they cant pick everyone. i dont think there are many bands in there who people wou;d object to--i mean you even made a case for madonna.

on the other hand if any one person has strong feelings towards or identifies closely with a band who is not in the hall then they can make a case why they should be in the hall, but its not like everyone will agree with them

it is what it is, which is the foremost authority on the best rock bands and musicians of all time. like it or not, we have to live with it, and it can hardly be considered a joke.

if you cant see that then we have to agree to disagree

[x togepi x]

well what we have is a group iof judges who vote themselves who gets in. in my opinion its not a joke

the problem with that group of judges is that they're not musicians. without musicians getting some say, you lose so much. i mean, this isn't like baseball where we can look to certain statistical benchmarks to say someone gets in if they hit like 500 home runs or whatever. it's more grey, which means we need different people in addition to who we have who decides.

the people in the hall are all very talented so they back up the no joke status. on the other hand you have some extremely influential and innovative musicians who did not get in. ultimately they cant pick everyone. i dont think there are many bands in there who people wou;d object to--i mean you even made a case for madonna.

of course not everyone can get in, but it should be more inclusive. there's so many bands that exist that you wouldn't be making the hall less prestigious by tweaking the standards to be more inclusive to the underground. if anything, the hall gets more prestigious because it doesn't ignore the other side of the coin.

it is what it is, which is the foremost authority on the best rock bands and musicians of all time. like it or not, we have to live with it, and it can hardly be considered a joke.

the idea that a bunch of old men who don't play music can tell me what the "best" rock bands of all time is a joke. but like i said, you keep ignoring all of the reasons i pointed out to merely restate that you don't think it' sa joke. cool.

[whataclush]

Also, I lol'd at Alternative Press' list. Read's like what my 13 year old self would've thought was HoF potential. The whole organization is a fucking joke

This/

[AndrewIcex]

but by the time these bands are eligible for induction into the hall they will have had done much more for the community. green day is already fairly politically active. not so much for blink or MCR though..
I wanna see how much they can do for the community... I have doubts, I mean a young 15-25 year old fan base is nothing like what the bands already in the HOF have... so that to me is a pretty big factor fan base wise.

[Regards]

and madonna should be in the rock and roll hall of fame (since it's not really based around rock music). she did a lot of innovative things with her videos as well as provided a strong role model of female musicians.
I agree that Madonna should be in there due to her influence, but the fact that Rush isn't in there is ridiculous.

[Thomas Nassiff]

the idea that a bunch of old men who don't play music can tell me what the "best" rock bands of all time is a joke. but like i said, you keep ignoring all of the reasons i pointed out to merely restate that you don't think it' sa joke. cool.

im not ignoring your reasons, i just addressed them in the last post. like your reason about how it reflects more the opinions of the judges than the will of the people. and to your comment about how it has ignored some underground impact, i agreed with you and stated that the hall cant possibly find and induct underground bands, they have to stick with well known, worldly popular bands. you dubbed those "safe" picks but, going back to your own reference, the baseball hall of fame, its not like anyone in that hall of fame isnt a safe pick. obviously thats not a very fair comparison because there is so much more music out there on so many more different levels but the point is that how do you propose they find out about the underground bands that have an impact when the other bands hog all the sunlight?

and its not like the hall judges are random old men. i mean, my grandpa isnt one of them, and he's a random old man. whoever is a judge is there for a reason, i dont know what it is and i daresay you dont know either but i can infer that they are more qualified than you or i to tell us who should get a plaque.

[x togepi x]

im not ignoring your reasons, i just addressed them in the last post. like your reason about how it reflects more the opinions of the judges than the will of the people. and to your comment about how it has ignored some underground impact, i agreed with you and stated that the hall cant possibly find and induct underground bands, they have to stick with well known, worldly popular bands.

Why?

If it's easy enough for 15 year old kids to get on the internet and find obscure 90s hardcore bands that were together for a month, broke up after playing 3 shows and put out a demo, why can't people who are supposedly highly educated about music find underground bands that had a musical impact but just didn't get mainstream success?

it's pretty easy to find information about sonic youth, the replacements, fugazi, mission of burma, joy division, the pixies, etc. Why leave them out of the hall? They impacted mainstream music just as much as many of the artists in the hall. In fact, most mainstream rock and roll today is a direct response from the music they created.

you dubbed those "safe" picks but, going back to your own reference, the baseball hall of fame, its not like anyone in that hall of fame isnt a safe pick.

Actually, many people in the baseball hall of fame aren't safe picks at all.

obviously thats not a very fair comparison because there is so much more music out there on so many more different levels but the point is that how do you propose they find out about the underground bands that have an impact when the other bands hog all the sunlight?

the fact that you think it's nearly impossible to find underground music shows a grave amount of ignorance of the way the industry works. if you call yourself educated about music enough to claim you're THE authority on rock and roll, you should at least have some knowledge of the underground.

and its not like the hall judges are random old men. i mean, my grandpa isnt one of them, and he's a random old man. whoever is a judge is there for a reason, i dont know what it is and i daresay you dont know either but i can infer that they are more qualified than you or i to tell us who should get a plaque.

This is a completely illogical statement.

[Thomas Nassiff]

Why?

If it's easy enough for 15 year old kids to get on the internet and find obscure 90s hardcore bands that were together for a month, broke up after playing 3 shows and put out a demo, why can't people who are supposedly highly educated about music find underground bands that had a musical impact but just didn't get mainstream success?

it's pretty easy to find information about sonic youth, the replacements, fugazi, mission of burma, joy division, the pixies, etc. Why leave them out of the hall? They impacted mainstream music just as much as many of the artists in the hall. In fact, most mainstream rock and roll today is a direct response from the music they created.



Actually, many people in the baseball hall of fame aren't safe picks at all.



the fact that you think it's nearly impossible to find underground music shows a grave amount of ignorance of the way the industry works. if you call yourself educated about music enough to claim you're THE authority on rock and roll, you should at least have some knowledge of the underground.



This is a completely illogical statement.

it is very simple for kids to get information on any underground band that they want. thats because we sit here for a couple hours and just look up 90s punk or whatever we want. what makes you think that a judge for the hall would be sitting around doing this? if you suggest that they should because they need to back up that status as the authority on who's the best of all time, then youre essentially suggesting that they at least partially ignore the big bands who are doing things on a global scale. and you know, maybe thats what the hall is supposed to represent. the big bands who actually got popular enough to be household names. maybe if you dont agree with that then you should start your own hall for underground bands. i dont know. but i guarantee you if you did start that hall, then some punk would come up to you and give you a list of bands that should be in your hall that arent.

the baseball hall of fame is full of safe picks. all of their picks are fully justified because the inductee was either a great player for a long time, broke some record, or revolutionized the game in some way i.e. jackie robinson.

i dont think that the people who work for the hall are necessarily ignorant about the underground. i just think that on the standard in which the hall works, it is somewhat irrelevant to them; when bruce springsteen gets inducted, everyone cheers. everyone knows born in the usa and glory days and dancing in the dark. if fugazi got inducted, well, how many people would never even have heard promises before? i think when its something as prestigious as the hall, they cant reach out to the underground because it wouldnt be popular with the general population. as corrupt as that may sound, we are a globalized world and globalization has led to mass media and mainstream music, which is what gets recognized. notice how the bands of today that have chance are like green day. green day after they released american idiot were arguably the biggest band in the world. they toured all over and made tons of money and sold out tons of shows after a 16-year career to that point. they are mainstream, they are legit for the hall.

and let me break down that last statement for you.
1. they arent random old men.----self explanatory.
2. they have a reason for being there----?get it?
3. you and i dont know the reason----still with me?
4. they are more qualified than us to say who is a hall of famer.----okay. broken down.

[AndrewIcex]

:popcorn:

[Thomas Nassiff]

I wanna see how much they can do for the community... I have doubts, I mean a young 15-25 year old fan base is nothing like what the bands already in the HOF have... so that to me is a pretty big factor fan base wise.

the thing is by the time these bands are eligible for the hall then those 25 year olds will be the ones who vote for the hall. and there is plenty of time there for these bands to help out in the community

[AndrewIcex]

the thing is by the time these bands are eligible for the hall then those 25 year olds will be the ones who vote for the hall. and there is plenty of time there for these bands to help out in the community
Maybe so, but right now their audience is clearly.. younger people.. no one really over the age of 30, so even though they may have the fans of the youth now.. who is to say they will keep them... I mean no one really knows what will happen, but do you really think they can have the same amount of audience impact as Zeppelin, the Beatles, Elvis, Floyd, Madonna (only mentioned her cause she is previously mentioned), the Stones, James Brown, Ray Charles, B.B. King, Dylan, The Kinks, the Who? I mean that is just a few, but if these bands can gain the same respect as all of those mentioned, then sure they have the right... but do they have that now? I don't think so, not even close...

[Charles777]

I'm not sure TBS is as popular as those other bands, but it would be damn cool to see them in the HoF.

[x togepi x]

it is very simple for kids to get information on any underground band that they want. thats because we sit here for a couple hours and just look up 90s punk or whatever we want. what makes you think that a judge for the hall would be sitting around doing this?

Two problems with this statement. First, it would be their job to be educated about music. If you lack a basic education of music, you don't need to be acting as the authority on what's the best rock bands ever. Some understanding of the underground and it's effect on the mainstream is fucking key to being educated enough to make these picks because the underground doesn't exist in a magical world completely separate from the mainstream. it effects it.

Secondly, and more importantly, you act as if knowledge of the bands i listed as being underground icons would take so much time out of their day, when it simply wouldn't. i didn't list obscure bands at all. these are all bands that rolling stone magazine (the head of which sits on the board) has covered at some point. they were all covered in major music publications. a lot of them have seen their music used in TV/movies, and a lot of bands call them influences. If a judge hasn't heard of them, they're ignorant, proving my point that the hall is a joke.

if you suggest that they should because they need to back up that status as the authority on who's the best of all time, then youre essentially suggesting that they at least partially ignore the big bands who are doing things on a global scale.

If we're going along with fallacious reasoning, then sure, but unfortunately, my position on the hall wasn't a zero sum game. I said we need MORE bands going in, not less, not the same amount. My position would be that these global acts that you say i'm ignoring would still get in AS WELL AS the underground acts.

The Hall of Fame already backs this up when they created the "early influences" section. The early influences didn't get global fame. They weren't necessarily household names. They got in because of their influence on the mainstream, much like these underground bands I'm talking about. This means there's no logical reason to ignore the underground.

and you know, maybe thats what the hall is supposed to represent. the big bands who actually got popular enough to be household names. maybe if you dont agree with that then you should start your own hall for underground bands. i dont know. but i guarantee you if you did start that hall, then some punk would come up to you and give you a list of bands that should be in your hall that arent.

You're missing the point for two reasons here.

First off, my contention is that only valuing the "house hold names" is a watered down ignorant conception of music. There's a lot of important acts that are going to be excluded, and the fact that the hall already recognizes "early influences" proves that the hall doesn't necessarily hold everyone to the household name standard.

Secondly, the fact that someone could come up with a list of bands that should be in the hall is irrelevant. I listed bands as an example, we can ignore my list because my main point is that it ignores the underground (among other things). If someone came up to my hall and had a good criticism of it, then it'd be equally a joke as the rock and roll hall of fame currently is.

the baseball hall of fame is full of safe picks. all of their picks are fully justified because the inductee was either a great player for a long time, broke some record, or revolutionized the game in some way i.e. jackie robinson.

Here you misunderstand my definition of "safe pick". I'm not saying a safe pick is merely someone who deserves to be in it, i'm saying they're the obvious ones that nobody can argue against. The point of this is that you tried to argue the hall's legitimacy because the beatles made it in.

The reason i bring up safe picks is that the baseball hall of fame, for example, is full of more contraversial ones. There are plenty of people who made that hall who some people feel like shouldn't or only made it in at the end.

The only reason this is relevant is that we don't define a hall's legitimacy purely based on who got in, we also ignore who got left out. A few years ago, people were heavily criticizing the baseball hall because it ignored the negro baseball leagues, so in response, many negro league players got inducted in a special ceremony, adding legitmacy. This is a perfect model for the sort of thing i'm arguing for.

i dont think that the people who work for the hall are necessarily ignorant about the underground. i just think that on the standard in which the hall works, it is somewhat irrelevant to them; when bruce springsteen gets inducted, everyone cheers. everyone knows born in the usa and glory days and dancing in the dark. if fugazi got inducted, well, how many people would never even have heard promises before?

Who cares if "everyone" wouldn't cheer or "nobody" would know who they are?

The hall is based on one's achievements, underground bands achieved just as much, with obstacles that precluded their mainstream popularity. The 80s underground creates a system where bands can tour without major label support. This drastically effected the music industry. You can't ignore that. Ignoring it is pure ignorance.

Your argument would be like a hall of fame based around Babe Ruth but ignoring people like Robin Yount or George Brett.

i think when its something as prestigious as the hall, they cant reach out to the underground because it wouldnt be popular with the general population. as corrupt as that may sound, we are a globalized world and globalization has led to mass media and mainstream music, which is what gets recognized.

your argument here falls apart because underground too has a global reach. the underground bands have effected the industry just as much as springsteen or the beatles have. they just didn't get popular with the general public, but neither did many of the earlier influences that made it in. so either we kick out all the earlier influences or we find a different standard. which do you prefer?

notice how the bands of today that have chance are like green day. green day after they released american idiot were arguably the biggest band in the world. they toured all over and made tons of money and sold out tons of shows after a 16-year career to that point. they are mainstream, they are legit for the hall.

Green Day would have never been a band if not for the 80s underground. This argument proves my point.

[Thomas Nassiff]

Maybe so, but right now their audience is clearly.. younger people.. no one really over the age of 30, so even though they may have the fans of the youth now.. who is to say they will keep them... I mean no one really knows what will happen, but do you really think they can have the same amount of audience impact as Zeppelin, the Beatles, Elvis, Floyd, Madonna (only mentioned her cause she is previously mentioned), the Stones, James Brown, Ray Charles, B.B. King, Dylan, The Kinks, the Who? I mean that is just a few, but if these bands can gain the same respect as all of those mentioned, then sure they have the right... but do they have that now? I don't think so, not even close...

well dont get me wrong, neither do i....

i dont think green day could match up with a band like the beatles....but consider that they already influenced many bands from their early years when they were true punk rock....they made a huge political statement with american idiot....and they just released 21st century breakdown which we have yet to see the full impact of.

who's to say that what they have done wont go down in history as great things? i mean, the people at woodstock didnt know they were AT WOODSTOCK.....they were just chilling. its impossible to predict how today's events will be looked at in the future.

maybe they will end up on the level of some of those bands, maybe not. maybe we have to lower our standards of what to expect. who knows.

[Thomas Nassiff]

togepi your post is really long, ill respond later tonight

[thespearkid]

I'm surprised this thread got so far without someone mentioning Radiohead.

[AndrewIcex]

well dont get me wrong, neither do i....

i dont think green day could match up with a band like the beatles....but consider that they already influenced many bands from their early years when they were true punk rock....they made a huge political statement with american idiot....and they just released 21st century breakdown which we have yet to see the full impact of.

who's to say that what they have done wont go down in history as great things? i mean, the people at woodstock didnt know they were AT WOODSTOCK.....they were just chilling. its impossible to predict how today's events will be looked at in the future.

maybe they will end up on the level of some of those bands, maybe not. maybe we have to lower our standards of what to expect. who knows.
First off, are you talking about matching up with the Beatles musically, or influentially?

Secondly, in today's era... there are.. nearly 5-10 different concerts and tours that are gigantic... making Woodstock in its day being more impressive in a sense... because today the huge concerts have become nothing special, and with that publicity on top of all the different types of promotion, if these bands cannot get more on a global scale for all ages rather than just the 15-25 demographic ages... then they should not be considered anything like the artists that are already in the HoF... there just is no excuse for having all the tools at your finger tips and not doing something with it.

[Thomas Nassiff]

First off, are you talking about matching up with the Beatles musically, or influentially?

Secondly, in today's era... there are.. nearly 5-10 different concerts and tours that are gigantic... making Woodstock in its day being more impressive in a sense... because today the huge concerts have become nothing special, and with that publicity on top of all the different types of promotion, if these bands cannot get more on a global scale for all ages rather than just the 15-25 demographic ages... then they should not be considered anything like the artists that are already in the HoF... there just is no excuse for having all the tools at your finger tips and not doing something with it.

i see what youre saying. but there has never been anything like woodstock. 500000+ people and three days in a row. our "gigantic" concerts have become so common because they are as gigantic. and i think that eventually we will see a band do HoF worthy things. maybe they are now and we just dont realize it.

RADIOHEAD...good call.

[AndrewIcex]

i see what youre saying. but there has never been anything like woodstock. 500000+ people and three days in a row. our "gigantic" concerts have become so common because they are as gigantic. and i think that eventually we will see a band do HoF worthy things. maybe they are now and we just dont realize it.

RADIOHEAD...good call.
We will see.. but I don't know if I can compare many bands to the ones already there... it just does not seem right, I just don't have nearly the same respect, sorry if that is insulting to the current acts out there... but I just don't, not yet at least.

[Thomas Nassiff]

Two problems with this statement. First, it would be their job to be educated about music. If you lack a basic education of music, you don't need to be acting as the authority on what's the best rock bands ever. Some understanding of the underground and it's effect on the mainstream is fucking key to being educated enough to make these picks because the underground doesn't exist in a magical world completely separate from the mainstream. it effects it.

Secondly, and more importantly, you act as if knowledge of the bands i listed as being underground icons would take so much time out of their day, when it simply wouldn't. i didn't list obscure bands at all. these are all bands that rolling stone magazine (the head of which sits on the board) has covered at some point. they were all covered in major music publications. a lot of them have seen their music used in TV/movies, and a lot of bands call them influences. If a judge hasn't heard of them, they're ignorant, proving my point that the hall is a joke.



If we're going along with fallacious reasoning, then sure, but unfortunately, my position on the hall wasn't a zero sum game. I said we need MORE bands going in, not less, not the same amount. My position would be that these global acts that you say i'm ignoring would still get in AS WELL AS the underground acts.

The Hall of Fame already backs this up when they created the "early influences" section. The early influences didn't get global fame. They weren't necessarily household names. They got in because of their influence on the mainstream, much like these underground bands I'm talking about. This means there's no logical reason to ignore the underground.



You're missing the point for two reasons here.

First off, my contention is that only valuing the "house hold names" is a watered down ignorant conception of music. There's a lot of important acts that are going to be excluded, and the fact that the hall already recognizes "early influences" proves that the hall doesn't necessarily hold everyone to the household name standard.

Secondly, the fact that someone could come up with a list of bands that should be in the hall is irrelevant. I listed bands as an example, we can ignore my list because my main point is that it ignores the underground (among other things). If someone came up to my hall and had a good criticism of it, then it'd be equally a joke as the rock and roll hall of fame currently is.



Here you misunderstand my definition of "safe pick". I'm not saying a safe pick is merely someone who deserves to be in it, i'm saying they're the obvious ones that nobody can argue against. The point of this is that you tried to argue the hall's legitimacy because the beatles made it in.

The reason i bring up safe picks is that the baseball hall of fame, for example, is full of more contraversial ones. There are plenty of people who made that hall who some people feel like shouldn't or only made it in at the end.

The only reason this is relevant is that we don't define a hall's legitimacy purely based on who got in, we also ignore who got left out. A few years ago, people were heavily criticizing the baseball hall because it ignored the negro baseball leagues, so in response, many negro league players got inducted in a special ceremony, adding legitmacy. This is a perfect model for the sort of thing i'm arguing for.



Who cares if "everyone" wouldn't cheer or "nobody" would know who they are?

The hall is based on one's achievements, underground bands achieved just as much, with obstacles that precluded their mainstream popularity. The 80s underground creates a system where bands can tour without major label support. This drastically effected the music industry. You can't ignore that. Ignoring it is pure ignorance.

Your argument would be like a hall of fame based around Babe Ruth but ignoring people like Robin Yount or George Brett.



your argument here falls apart because underground too has a global reach. the underground bands have effected the industry just as much as springsteen or the beatles have. they just didn't get popular with the general public, but neither did many of the earlier influences that made it in. so either we kick out all the earlier influences or we find a different standard. which do you prefer?



Green Day would have never been a band if not for the 80s underground. This argument proves my point.


you have good points. i never said that the hall shouldnt add more or in the future induct more underground bands. the only thing im trying to say is that i cant agree with you considering it a joke....

i already said that i dont think that the judges are ignorant to the underground. you proved that point by saying that the head of Rolling Stone is ont he board. therefore they do know about it and the amount of time is takes for them to find about it is irrelevant. now i dont know how to try to reiterate my point any more clearly.....the hall is mainstream. everyone finds out who gets in and the hall cant induct underground bands because of how it would be frowned upon by a plurality of the people. and although you think no one should cares well the hall doesnt reflect your opinions.

im getting kind of tired of arguing the same thing back and forth and so whatever. we'll agree to disagree. lol