Rock Hall 08 Nominees - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-16-2007, 01:14 PM   #106
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 61,632
Local Time: 05:39 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 01:18 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 01:44 PM   #108
A vampire or a victim...
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,700
Local Time: 08:39 AM
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?
__________________

Last night they loved you
Opening doors and pulling some strings, angel

VintagePunk is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 01:56 PM   #109
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 35,928
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LemonMelon
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.
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:10 PM   #110
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 61,632
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Gosh, I'm agreeing with laz a lot these days.

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:16 PM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 35,928
Local Time: 05:39 AM
I'm contagious?
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:21 PM   #112
A childless dog
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 64,345
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus



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.
__________________
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:37 PM   #113
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 35,928
Local Time: 05:39 AM
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?
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:44 PM   #114
A childless dog
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 64,345
Local Time: 05:39 AM
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.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:01 PM   #115
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,257
Local Time: 07:39 AM
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.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:03 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 35,928
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LemonMelon
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.
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:04 PM   #117
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 61,632
Local Time: 05:39 AM
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.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:09 PM   #118
A childless dog
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 64,345
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus



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?
__________________
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:25 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 35,928
Local Time: 05:39 AM
But if you're talking influence as a major criteria, how can you NOT include Madonna? Because hers goes far beyond Britney and co.
__________________
lazarus is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:39 PM   #120
A childless dog
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 64,345
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
But, answer me this:

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

__________________
LemonMelon is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com