kiss/chilli peppers don't get in HOF

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Oh sweetie, don't worry about them. They're just snob wannabes. Real snobs don't give a flying fuck who's in the Hall of Fame.

cookiemonster.gif
 
In all seriousness, I think the idea of a RnRHOF is stupid because music is way too subjective. In sports, at least the statistics mean something. In music, awards and record sales are commonly disputed as measurements of talent, which really means that there isn't any reasonable way to form said Hall of Fame. No two HOFs would look much alike.

That said, Aerosmith still shouldn't be in.

Bottom line is this: they fucking recorded Love In An Elevator. If that laughable, embarrassing dreck isn't an instant disqualification, I don't know what is.
 
for the people here that like the VU, do you enjoy any kinda of "party music? i mean you think ALL music needs to be as serious as the VU?
 
Bottom line is this: they fucking recorded Love In An Elevator. If that laughable, embarrassing dreck isn't an instant disqualification, I don't know what is.

Not to mention that little number called "I Don't Want To Miss a Thing".
 
Bottom line is this: they fucking recorded Love In An Elevator. If that laughable, embarrassing dreck isn't an instant disqualification, I don't know what is.

Thankfully your lousy taste of music isn't the deciding factor whether an artist is qualified or not.
:tongue:
 
for the people here that like the VU, do you enjoy any kinda of "party music? i mean you think ALL music needs to be as serious as the VU?

That depends on what your undoubtedly skewed definition of party music is. And as artists such as Cut Copy and LCD Soundsystem prove, danceable music can have some real weight behind it.
 
"Lady Godiva's Operation" is a killer dance track, what are you talking about?
 
the reason i ask it is because somebody brought the VU into the discussion as the type of group that should be in and not some bands like aerosmith. And another irony of this is that, while it was said here having aerosmith and VU in the same hall is a contradiction , alot of "real music fans/snobs" think having u2 and VU is a contradiction . I seem to recall some very negative feedback from the music world when the VU reunited and opened for u2. I believe, someone said "having the VU open for u2 is like having jimi hendrix opening for the monkeys". Your calling aerosmith dreck meanwhile thats the exact word most underground knowledgeable music fans have for our fav band,u2.Thats quite interesting. I mean sorry you can't get my point. Lets work it this way? why do you think aerosmith sux? Just answer that for me please . Maybe i missed something. Just tell me that.
 
and i was wrong for saying party music. What i meant was, do the people here that dislike aerosmith also dislike van halen,ac/dc, etc? Is it that, you hate commercial music or you just think aerosmith is a band that is bad at what they do? regardless of their style.
 
no Kiss/RHCP until Rush and Yes are inducted. Those are way more egregious examples of the irrelevance and ridiculousness of the RnRHOF
 
the reason i ask it is because somebody brought the VU into the discussion as the type of group that should be in and not some bands like aerosmith. And another irony of this is that, while it was said here having aerosmith and VU in the same hall is a contradiction , alot of "real music fans/snobs" think having u2 and VU is a contradiction . I seem to recall some very negative feedback from the music world when the VU reunited and opened for u2. I believe, someone said "having the VU open for u2 is like having jimi hendrix opening for the monkeys". Your calling aerosmith dreck meanwhile thats the exact word most underground knowledgeable music fans have for our fav band,u2.Thats quite interesting. I mean sorry you can't get my point. Lets work it this way? why do you think aerosmith sux? Just answer that for me please . Maybe i missed something. Just tell me that.

U2 and Aerosmith are very different. Most "underground people" dislike 2000s U2, but you'll find very few people disrespecting the first 15 years of U2's career.
 
and i was wrong for saying party music. What i meant was, do the people here that dislike aerosmith also dislike van halen,ac/dc, etc? Is it that, you hate commercial music or you just think aerosmith is a band that is bad at what they do? regardless of their style.

Nobody here hates commercial music just because it's commercial. That's the point you seem to continue to miss.

I dislike AC/DC. I don't enjoy Aerosmith, and haven't liked much of what I've heard of Van Halen. I think AC/DC is the worst of those three. As in, I actively dislike AC/DC's music, whereas the other two are just very, very average to my ears.

But I'm a U2 fan; how can I hate commercial music and like U2? I also like The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen and David Bowie, who were immensely popular. None of the people here are saying commercial success = bad music. We're saying commercial success is a shitty way of judging how good something is.

There shouldn't be a Hall of Fame at all, and I am incredibly indifferent to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I really don't care at all who's in and who's out, in the end. But I think there are discussions to be had on merits stemming from selections such as this year's, hence this thread.
 
So is recording dreck an automatic disqualification?

The difference? Aerosmith were being serious when they recorded theirs


That being said, Chocolate Salty Balls is one of the greatest songs of our generation. How dare you imply that its dreck :tsk: shame on you
 
Bowie is great, but david bowie's best stuff is not commercial. At least in the us, the Berlin trilogy and scary monsters were not smash hits. I mean, unless i read his sales history wrong. I like lets dance, but not his best or most creative. I know everyone knows his name, but everyone also knows the ramones but no one owns the music in general. They all know "wanna be sedated" but thats it. Now, the thing about commercial success being a shitty way to judge music, at least now i get your point. Wish someone had said that before without bringing VU's name into it. Well, i say, if you sell a ton of records , you don't think that deserves any kinda of recognition?
 
Recognition, yeah, sure. I just don't think by the Hall of Fame. Billboard does that whole platinum/gold system or whatever. There's your recognition. If your music had some value beyond its sales, then we'll talk about the Hall.
 
huge??? i just checked his sales . lets dance and tonight, and like a greatest hits is platinum and a few early albums gold. Huge? hugely influential. Sales not exactly insane. Anyone have his soundscan numbers? I'd be very interested to see that. Maybe someone hasn't updated his records.
 
He was the biggest selling artist in the UK in the early 70s. Huge. Just because he doesnt do as well in your lovely country doesnt mean that he isnt successful elsewhere
 
well i did say at least in the us. It wasn't a dig at other country's. But regardless, i would like to see his us numbers.
 
Not to mention that Bowie was the face of one of the biggest music movements of the early part of the '70s with Glam Rock, then continued to stay relevant throughout most of the decade by dabbling in R&B, Soul, Disco, Art Rock, and some early New Wave. He had at least a Gold record in the US or UK from '71 to '87, if the figures I'm reading are correct. Plus, most, if not all, of those albums have been re-released recently, not sure if that's factored in as well.

And I was the one to bring The Velvet Underground into the argument since they act as a counterpoint to the "sales/longevity put you in the Hall of the Fame" argument.

Like Pfan said, there's recognition for sales, and there's nothing wrong with that, that's a great achievement. Not a huge fan of the idea of a Hall of Fame for such a subjective enterprise anyway, especially if it's dictated by Jann Wenner, of all people.
 
Back
Top Bottom