Rock Hall 08 Nominees

[MrPryck2U]

Well, it's very cool that Madonna, John Mellencamp and Leonard Cohen got into the HOF, but the Beastie Boys should've gotten in too.

 

[Axver]

I'm delighted that The Ventures are in. Couldn't give a shit about the rest.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I'm delighted that The Ventures are in. Couldn't give a shit about the rest.

 

[LemonMelon]

The Beasties are friggin awesome. Shame they didn't make it, but they aren't really all that rock n' roll anyway.

Mellencamp

 

[U2girl]

More Madonna worship.

 

[lazarus]

Worship? I'd say the combination of influence, innovation, resilience, and album sales makes her a worthy candidate as any, especially when it seems every doo-wop group that ever existed is able to get in.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, worship, meaning MTV Icon, "queen of pop" etc. sucking up into infinity every time her name is brought up. You'd think she's up there with the likes of Beatles, Elvis, Dylan. I oculd think of far more influential women in music.

I will give her the ability of reinventing herself (I wonder if "adoption mommy of the year" is a phase too), but the real reason she's around for this long is because she had the same idea first (even it had more brains behind it) that the minions like Britney, Paris & co (and pretty much any female singer on MTV) use: sex/controversy sells. As far as actual music ability, I doubt she'll ever be remembered for songwriting and/or singing (I think Ray of Light - which I liked - saved her career musically).

 

[lazarus]

Ray of Light did save her career, to be sure. And while she's never been regarded as a great singer, she can carry a tune. As for writing, she's co-written all of her material as far back as Like a Prayer, if I'm not mistaken, which is more than you can say for a great deal of artists who are in the Hall of Fame. She also learned to play a little guitar this decade to give her music another layer, authentic personailty. The point is that the reinvention wouldn't mean anything if there wasn't something substantial behind it. There's nothing phony about her exploration of sex in Erotica, her newfound spirituality through motherhood on Ray of Light, her political defiance on American Life, etc.

Also, seeking out new club sounds and working with them before they become trendy, always riding the wave of the moment is not something easily managed, and she's done it time and time again. When you compare her to acts like Britney, Paris, etc. you're doing her a disservice because Madonna has always been much deeper--she's much more of an artist than those teeny-boppers (something she never really was).

 

[Butterscotch]

The Hall is going more and more for popularity and commericalism every year instead of substance.

 

[corianderstem]

I was coming in here to defend Madonna's rightful place in the HOF, but lazarus beat me to it.

Well said.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I really am not getting all the Madonna bashing in here, but oh well.

She's in and I think it's great.

 

[LemonMelon]

Madonna is cool, but it's just one more artist that isn't remotely rock n' roll in the Rock Hall.

 

[corianderstem]

Well, you could nitpick the genres of pop and rock and roll until you're blue in the face, but I think it's pretty pointless.

The HOF is obviously using a broader definition of "rock and roll" that goes beyond three chords played loudly by a bunch of white dudes.

 

[U2isthebest]

Ray of Light did save her career, to be sure. And while she's never been regarded as a great singer, she can carry a tune. As for writing, she's co-written all of her material as far back as Like a Prayer, if I'm not mistaken, which is more than you can say for a great deal of artists who are in the Hall of Fame. She also learned to play a little guitar this decade to give her music another layer, authentic personailty. The point is that the reinvention wouldn't mean anything if there wasn't something substantial behind it. There's nothing phony about her exploration of sex in Erotica, her newfound spirituality through motherhood on Ray of Light, her political defiance on American Life, etc.

Also, seeking out new club sounds and working with them before they become trendy, always riding the wave of the moment is not something easily managed, and she's done it time and time again. When you compare her to acts like Britney, Paris, etc. you're doing her a disservice because Madonna has always been much deeper--she's much more of an artist than those teeny-boppers (something she never really was).

Well said! Just to be a Madonna nerd for a second, she actually started co-writing every song on "True Blue" and also wrote a couple on "Madonna" and "Like A Virgin".

From what I've heard her co-writers usually serve more like editors and most of the writing is done by Madonna herself. Her voice has improved greatly over the years, and I've always liked her "live" voice much better than her "studio" voice. It's much more raw and pure sounding.

 

[U2isthebest]

Well, you could nitpick the genres of pop and rock and roll until you're blue in the face, but I think it's pretty pointless.

The HOF is obviously using a broader definition of "rock and roll" that goes beyond three chords played loudly by a bunch of white dudes.

QFT.

 

[corianderstem]

Her voice has totally improved over the years. She still doesn't have the best voice, but that training she had prior to filming Evita really paid off. She's come a long way from the thin voice she had on her first few albums.

 

[U2isthebest]

Her voice has totally improved over the years. She still doesn't have the best voice, but that training she had prior to filming Evita really paid off. She's come a long way from the thin voice she had on her first few albums.

Definitely! Although, I think her voice really started improving with "Like A Prayer" and, I think "Live To Tell" is still one of her greatest vocals, period. It's hard to believe she actually made up most of the lyrics to that song on the mic. I do remember her saying that on the first 2 albums (especially "Like A Virgin") she was asked to sing in a very high-pitched voice which she knew was out of her range. I remember saying that she had no regrets in her career, but that was as close as she came to regretting anything.

 

[VintagePunk]

I don't have a problem with various genres being represented. After all, they all have cross-influenced each other historically, and sometimes you can almost follow the progression in a linear fashion. However, I do think that each nominee/recipient should have added something groundbreaking or unique to their genre. That said, wtf is Mellencamp (aka Springsteen-lite) doing on the list? He's enjoyable enough at times, but not really unique. I don't agree with the "Petty is in" argument, I don't think he should be, either.

Has anyone found any nomination criteria that are used, or is that super sekrit info that only Wenner's people are privy to?

 

[lazarus]

Madonna is cool, but it's just one more artist that isn't remotely rock n' roll in the Rock Hall.

What the hell does that mean? Does Tina Turner belong? Where do you draw the line? Because rock and roll often overlaps with funk, R&B, and certainly dance. Because of this hybridization with so much of what is going on and has gone on in music, these distinctions are nearly impossible. Are New Order rock and roll? Because something like Blue Monday is a pure dance track, yet the band plays real instruments on most of their songs. How about the Bee Gees? Their earlier work was guitar-based, but they struck it big with disco and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack.

The beauty of rock and roll is that it has blended so many genres, from folk to country to blues to hip-hop to gospel to electronica. Under this umbrella we can include not only guitar bands, but people like Ray Charles, Miles Davis (who had 2 guitarists in one of his bands while his own trumpet was hooked up to a wah-wah pedal), Little Richard, James Brown, Bob Marley, Joni Mitchell, Prince, Beastie Boys, etc. To sit there and say "isn't remotely rock and roll" without defining what it is comes off not only as snobbery but a total misconception of the term.

 

[corianderstem]

Gosh, I'm agreeing with laz a lot these days.

 

[lazarus]

I'm contagious?

 

[LemonMelon]

What the hell does that mean? Does Tina Turner belong? Where do you draw the line? Because rock and roll often overlaps with funk, R&B, and certainly dance. Because of this hybridization with so much of what is going on and has gone on in music, these distinctions are nearly impossible. Are New Order rock and roll? Because something like Blue Monday is a pure dance track, yet the band plays real instruments on most of their songs. How about the Bee Gees? Their earlier work was guitar-based, but they struck it big with disco and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack.

The beauty of rock and roll is that it has blended so many genres, from folk to country to blues to hip-hop to gospel to electronica. Under this umbrella we can include not only guitar bands, but people like Ray Charles, Miles Davis (who had 2 guitarists in one of his bands while his own trumpet was hooked up to a wah-wah pedal), Little Richard, James Brown, Bob Marley, Joni Mitchell, Prince, Beastie Boys, etc. To sit there and say "isn't remotely rock and roll" without defining what it is comes off not only as snobbery but a total misconception of the term.

So every genre in existence counts as rock simply because there's a guitar somewhere in the mix? Sorry, don't buy that. Especially concerning Madge. You mention all of these different artists that may not be recognized as rock n roll now, like Marley, Joni Mitchell, and the Bee Gees, but they all have some very band and guitar-oriented music under their belt, while Madonna has never had that. Heck, even the Beastie Boys were heavily influenced by punk, and it showed up in their recordings.

Now, of course, if you mean that rock n' roll is more of an attitude than a musical style, I would still have to disagree with you concerning Madonna.

If we're talking about the music itself, you have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise all popular music = rock which, sorry, it isn't.

 

[lazarus]

Well if having a guitar in the mix doesn't qualify something, then does having no guitars disqualify it? Because Paul's Boutique and Hello Nasty, for example, don't contain any guitars. So the Beastie Boys are rock and roll because they have punk origins, even if it doesn't show up at all on two of their biggest albums? Madonna was in a rock band in New York before she got a record deal, and was playing (I imagine rudimentary) guitar and drums at the time. So the Beasties get credit for their early dabbling and not her?

The point I was trying to make is that over the years the genres have become totally blurred because of their influence on each other, and you have many bands who bounce around and are difficult to categorize. Rock and Roll is just more encompassing than country or jazz, for example, because while I would consider Johnny Cash rock and roll, I wouldn't call Slayer country. Madonna is rock and roll simply because she adheres to the same kitchen sink aesthetic that the label has come to signify. You use what works for each song/album/project. When I think of dance, I think of something beat-based and repetitive, for use only in clubs. Madonna for about 95% of her material writes verse-chorus-verse songs, which qualify her as pop-rock. Half of her material (aside from You Can Dance or Confessions on a Dance Floor) aren't even dance tracks anyway. What the hell category WOULD you put her in?

And do you feel that artists like The Supremes or the Isley Brothers belong in the Hall? Where do you draw the line between R&B and rock and roll?

 

[LemonMelon]

Oh, come on, Paul's Boutique contains tons of guitars! They may be sampled, but many of the hooks are guitar-based. Hey Ladies, Eggman, Looking Down The Barrel of A Gun...etc.

What is Madonna if not an artist for the clubs? It's in her roots, and it's what she does now. If you can't call her dance, I certainly don't understand how you can call her a rock n' roll artist. And if Madonna is rock, why not Britney Spears? Her first few albums were verse-chorus-verse-chorus too, and some of them even had guitars.

I do consider classic R&B to be in the rock n' roll category simply because it stands for Rhythm & Blues, the cornerstones of early rock. It was incredibly influential on the genre.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

yeah i've gotta agree with lemonmelon on this one. i don't hate madonna (although i'm not exactly her biggest fan either), but i don't see how her - or most of the people being inducted these days - classify as rock and roll.

it might as well be renamed to the pop music hall of fame, which wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as there were still standards in place so throwaway acts like spice girls (as much as i love them) didn't get inducted when they were eligible just because they fit the standards of being a pop group.

if things keep progressing the way they are with inductions, all you'll need is a #1 single to be inducted into the hall of fame once you're eligible, all the while the prog category gets largely ignored.

i kind of liken the hall of fame to the grammys. years ago both held some prestige, i remember it being a big deal when an artist won a grammy. it was their way of being told they were an accepted artist. same goes for hof, it told the band/artist they had real longevity and had contributed something real to the rock scene. i won't just pick on madonna here, but you can't look at all of the inductees not just this year but the past couple years and tell me they've contributed to ROCK. not dance, not pop, but rock. the only thing i can hope is in future years when the 90s teeniebopper groups become eligible, the hof will look and realise what kind of acts they've been inducting, people who are about as rock as, well, the spice girls or britney and do a major overhaul. at least maybe at that point genres of rock that've been largely ignored by the committee will finally be properly represented.

 

[lazarus]

I do consider classic R&B to be in the rock n' roll category simply because it stands for Rhythm & Blues, the cornerstones of early rock. It was incredibly influential on the genre.

Well here's where your argument falls apart. You want to include the stuff that doesn't sound like rock because it influenced it, yet you want to exclude the stuff that doesn't sound like rock because it's more directly descended. That doesn't make any sense. Madonna has a hell of a lot more input and control over her material than The Supremes did, for example, and if they deserve to be there so does she. And for the record, Bedtime Stories is much more R&B than a out-and-out dance album, so that blur remains.

And yes, the Britneys, the N'Syncs...they are all included in that categorization. If you're going to put in every African American singing group that never played any instruments, then you have to be open to the best of what this subgenre has to offer. Neither of those two I mentioned deserve Hall of Fame induction, but someone like Madonna, a genre-bender who paved the way for so many others, is deserving, whether you like it or not.

Another thing: does Michael Jackson belong? Please explain.

 

[corianderstem]

I guess I don't understand why some would say that the HOF has to have such a strict definition of "rock." Why can't it include pop?

But yeah, agreed that it's not nearly as prestigious as the HOF folks would have you think. Like the Grammys, for sure.

I see a much stronger argument for Madonna, who has been very influential (yes, on pop music, but very influential), over someone like Mellencamp.

 

[LemonMelon]

Well here's where your argument falls apart. You want to include the stuff that doesn't sound like rock because it influenced it, yet you want to exclude the stuff that doesn't sound like rock because it's more directly descended. That doesn't make any sense.

It does, actually.

The latter is diluted, while the former is the foundation. Which one do you think deserves more recognition as an influence on popular music?

 

[lazarus]

But if you're talking influence as a major criteria, how can you NOT include Madonna? Because hers goes far beyond Britney and co.

 

[LemonMelon]

But if you're talking influence as a major criteria, how can you NOT include Madonna? Because hers goes far beyond Britney and co.

But, answer me this:

How did she influence ROCK? That's what she made it to the Hall for, after all.