quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: Originally posted by heemer77 I am not saying that there is no crossover, there is plenty of gray area. But the Rock & Roll HOF as a catch all for any popular US music that isn't part of the Grand Ole Opry? I think that the name is completely misleading. It's really the pop music HOF, which is fine, but the name conjures up a different image in my head. I am not saying that there is a bright line rule for inclusion, but instead argue that the name of the place itself should be changed. Obviously admissions are very individualized. However, if you want my line drawn? All I can do is give anecdotes. Elton John, Korn, Jack White, Billy Joel and The Black Keys are rock...Madonna, Adele, Justin Bieber, Eminem and Lady Gaga are not. I am not saying that I dislike the pop and rap end of the spectrum, I just find it to be a different animal. I respect your position and your thinking. It is reasonable. However, I think to narrowly define "Rock and Roll" as you and others have done in this thraed is just as errant as declaring all types of music rock. It is hard to objectively draw the line. And I think narrowing the defintion to Hard Rock, Metal, Gutter, and things only as far as the British Invasion/Classic Rock which isn't pop is brutally arbitrary. Pop if meaning popular and that's it, then great. But many of the people you named fit that category: Elton John for sure. Popular Music Hall of Fame would be fair name if you're not defining "pop" as a genre but instaed a "popularity" term. I see no other way to objectively distinguish between Adele and Madonna and Elton John and Billy Joel. They all were darned popular, sold tons of albums, and have musical talent. Plenty of EJ and BJ tunes are pop.

To coin a term...good grief man. I'm guessing a person with a healthy dose of common sense can conclude what "rock and roll" is and is not. Let me give you an example to help clear your confused mind....These are acts in the RNRHOF: Class of '90 - The Kinks - RNR Louis Armstrong - not RNR Class of '95 Led Zeppelin - RNR Al Green - not RNR Class of 2000 Eric Clapton - RNR Earth, Wind & Fire - not RNR Class of 2005 The Pretenders - RNR Percy Sledge - not RNR Class of 2010 The Stooges - RNR Jimmy Cliff - not RNR I don't think anyone "narrowly defined" anything in here. Common sense says RnB/Soul/Rap doesn't belong in a RNRHOF anymore than punk/hair/glam/garage rock belongs in a country music HOF. Sheesh man. I think sometimes you enjoy being the contrarian too much. All of the artists in the RnRHOF I'm sure are deserving in their induction into some kind of HOF, and if it's a general music one I'm totally cool with it. In fact their website says this "the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is alive with the energy, passion and the spirit of music". I can totally buy that. Just drop the RnR moniker, because using that is like Budweiser saying it's the King of Beers. Total bullshit and misleading.

quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 To coin a term...good grief man. I'm guessing a person with a healthy dose of common sense can conclude what "rock and roll" is and is not. Let me give you an example to help clear your confused mind....These are acts in the RNRHOF: Class of '90 - The Kinks - RNR Louis Armstrong - not RNR Class of '95 Led Zeppelin - RNR Al Green - not RNR Class of 2000 Eric Clapton - RNR Earth, Wind & Fire - not RNR Class of 2005 The Pretenders - RNR Percy Sledge - not RNR Class of 2010 The Stooges - RNR Jimmy Cliff - not RNR I don't think anyone "narrowly defined" anything in here. Common sense says RnB/Soul/Rap doesn't belong in a RNRHOF anymore than punk/hair/glam/garage rock belongs in a country music HOF. Sheesh man. I think sometimes you enjoy being the contrarian too much. All of the artists in the RnRHOF I'm sure are deserving in their induction into some kind of HOF, and if it's a general music one I'm totally cool with it. In fact their website says this "the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is alive with the energy, passion and the spirit of music". I can totally buy that. Just drop the RnR moniker, because using that is like Budweiser saying it's the King of Beers. Total bullshit and misleading.

I have no idea what is so contrarian about either view. Of course, there is a narrow sense in which "rock" is only a narrow band of music. The broader usage of the term rock and roll (which is what the hall uses and what I've been trying to point out) has been around since, when? The 1950's. None of the groups that were first coined "rock and roll" music writers/performers would qualify today by your and others definition of rock in the narrow sense. We get that. But, that's not the sense in which the Hall is using the term. That's the point. It's not that debateable. And it is again anachronistic/revisionist to exclude that usage of the word by the term you are more familar with in a more modern era. I don't think this should be confused with stating that blues, jazz, and big band music are rock. You've got a fine point there. It isn't EVERYTHING. But heck, if the RnR HOF admitted any artists from those genres becuase of their extreme influence on the genesis or evolution of rock and roll, they'd certainly be reasonable doing so. Additionally, those genres that have spawned from rock and roll (everything from metal to mowtown to pop) are rightly part of the broad definition. Is Elvis rightly in the HOF? He was rockabilly, doesn't fit today's "rock" definition or does he? Are the Beatles? They were pop. No idea what is so contrarian here. I'm not the one opposing the HOF's broadly determined defintions and worthy artists. Opposing that is the same as striking a broadly recognized definintion of a word from the English langauge. That sounds pretty contrarian.

quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 To coin a term...good grief man. I'm guessing a person with a healthy dose of common sense can conclude what "rock and roll" is and is not. Let me give you an example to help clear your confused mind....These are acts in the RNRHOF: Class of '90 - The Kinks - RNR Louis Armstrong - not RNR Class of '95 Led Zeppelin - RNR Al Green - not RNR Class of 2000 Eric Clapton - RNR Earth, Wind & Fire - not RNR Class of 2005 The Pretenders - RNR Percy Sledge - not RNR Class of 2010 The Stooges - RNR Jimmy Cliff - not RNR I don't think anyone "narrowly defined" anything in here. Common sense says RnB/Soul/Rap doesn't belong in a RNRHOF anymore than punk/hair/glam/garage rock belongs in a country music HOF. Sheesh man. I think sometimes you enjoy being the contrarian too much. All of the artists in the RnRHOF I'm sure are deserving in their induction into some kind of HOF, and if it's a general music one I'm totally cool with it. In fact their website says this "the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is alive with the energy, passion and the spirit of music". I can totally buy that. Just drop the RnR moniker, because using that is like Budweiser saying it's the King of Beers. Total bullshit and misleading. I have no idea what is so contrarian about either view. Of course, there is a narrow sense in which "rock" is only a narrow band of music. The broader usage of the term rock and roll (which is what the hall uses and what I've been trying to point out) has been around since, when? The 1950's. None of the groups that were first coined "rock and roll" music writers/performers would qualify today by your and others definition of rock in the narrow sense. We get that. But, that's not the sense in which the Hall is using the term. That's the point. It's not that debateable. And it is again anachronistic/revisionist to exclude that usage of the word by the term you are more familar with in a more modern era. I don't think this should be confused with stating that blues, jazz, and big band music are rock. You've got a fine point there. It isn't EVERYTHING. But heck, if the RnR HOF admitted any artists from those genres becuase of their extreme influence on the genesis or evolution of rock and roll, they'd certainly be reasonable doing so. Additionally, those genres that have spawned from rock and roll (everything from metal to mowtown to pop) are rightly part of the broad definition. Is Elvis rightly in the HOF? He was rockabilly, doesn't fit today's "rock" definition or does he? Are the Beatles? They were pop. No idea what is so contrarian here. I'm not the one opposing the HOF's broadly determined defintions and worthy artists. Opposing that is the same as striking a broadly recognized definintion of a word from the English langauge. That sounds pretty contrarian.

I think Eric mentioned in a reply that he conjures up a different image of what RnR is defined as. Elvis, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent...all pioneers for Rock and belong in there as such. RnR didn't start with stoner rock in the 70's. And I sure don't consider "rock and roll" a term that changes thru the decades. To me, it either is or it isn't and if the Hall wants to err on the side of caution and admit someone that is borderline...I'm fine with that. But to admit artists that are blatantly NOT RnR shows that they want to be all inclusive to all forms of music. So that means it should just be called the Musicians Hall of Fame, Pop Music or Billboard Hall of Fame or something that that doesn't project a particular kind of music. Because when they allow artists that have nothing to do with that style of music the Hall is named for and then blatantly omit bands/musicians that have RnR stampted all over their resume it loses all credibility with fans.

quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 To coin a term...good grief man. I'm guessing a person with a healthy dose of common sense can conclude what "rock and roll" is and is not. Let me give you an example to help clear your confused mind....These are acts in the RNRHOF: Class of '90 - The Kinks - RNR Louis Armstrong - not RNR Class of '95 Led Zeppelin - RNR Al Green - not RNR Class of 2000 Eric Clapton - RNR Earth, Wind & Fire - not RNR Class of 2005 The Pretenders - RNR Percy Sledge - not RNR Class of 2010 The Stooges - RNR Jimmy Cliff - not RNR I don't think anyone "narrowly defined" anything in here. Common sense says RnB/Soul/Rap doesn't belong in a RNRHOF anymore than punk/hair/glam/garage rock belongs in a country music HOF. Sheesh man. I think sometimes you enjoy being the contrarian too much. All of the artists in the RnRHOF I'm sure are deserving in their induction into some kind of HOF, and if it's a general music one I'm totally cool with it. In fact their website says this "the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is alive with the energy, passion and the spirit of music". I can totally buy that. Just drop the RnR moniker, because using that is like Budweiser saying it's the King of Beers. Total bullshit and misleading. I have no idea what is so contrarian about either view. Of course, there is a narrow sense in which "rock" is only a narrow band of music. The broader usage of the term rock and roll (which is what the hall uses and what I've been trying to point out) has been around since, when? The 1950's. None of the groups that were first coined "rock and roll" music writers/performers would qualify today by your and others definition of rock in the narrow sense. We get that. But, that's not the sense in which the Hall is using the term. That's the point. It's not that debateable. And it is again anachronistic/revisionist to exclude that usage of the word by the term you are more familar with in a more modern era. I don't think this should be confused with stating that blues, jazz, and big band music are rock. You've got a fine point there. It isn't EVERYTHING. But heck, if the RnR HOF admitted any artists from those genres becuase of their extreme influence on the genesis or evolution of rock and roll, they'd certainly be reasonable doing so. Additionally, those genres that have spawned from rock and roll (everything from metal to mowtown to pop) are rightly part of the broad definition. Is Elvis rightly in the HOF? He was rockabilly, doesn't fit today's "rock" definition or does he? Are the Beatles? They were pop. No idea what is so contrarian here. I'm not the one opposing the HOF's broadly determined defintions and worthy artists. Opposing that is the same as striking a broadly recognized definintion of a word from the English langauge. That sounds pretty contrarian. I think Eric mentioned in a reply that he conjures up a different image of what RnR is defined as. Elvis, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent...all pioneers for Rock and belong in there as such. RnR didn't start with stoner rock in the 70's. And I sure don't consider "rock and roll" a term that changes thru the decades. To me, it either is or it isn't and if the Hall wants to err on the side of caution and admit someone that is borderline...I'm fine with that. But to admit artists that are blatantly NOT RnR shows that they want to be all inclusive to all forms of music. So that means it should just be called the Musicians Hall of Fame, Pop Music or Billboard Hall of Fame or something that that doesn't project a particular kind of music. Because when they allow artists that have nothing to do with that style of music the Hall is named for and then blatantly omit bands/musicians that have RnR stampted all over their resume it loses all credibility with fans.

I think Eric hit it dead on: anecdotal is all you can do. I took a look at wikipedia, which isn't the best source for research, but it isn't a bad baseline. In it, if you look under "rock and roll," the article on the "50's" music, you actually see that "Rock," "Rockabilly," and "Pop" are derivative forms. I think that is my point. That's all the RnR HOF is claiming to be. Not any one subgroup there. Once you start getting narrower, it is near impossible and super subjective. Under the article for "Pop Rock," you'll find both Elton John and Billy Joel listed. Yet, above they were "Rock" and not pop. Earth, Wind, and Fire being barred from a classification of rock is equally problematic. The wiki article on them properly gives them credit for being such. And, in fact, exclusion of them and R&B from the broad category of rock and roll is racially sad, almost a reversal of not recognizing the early pioneers that were black and from the blues/jazz genres of music. The earliest forms of rock and roll were white men popularizing and stealing the well established music of black men.

quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 To coin a term...good grief man. I'm guessing a person with a healthy dose of common sense can conclude what "rock and roll" is and is not. Let me give you an example to help clear your confused mind....These are acts in the RNRHOF: Class of '90 - The Kinks - RNR Louis Armstrong - not RNR Class of '95 Led Zeppelin - RNR Al Green - not RNR Class of 2000 Eric Clapton - RNR Earth, Wind & Fire - not RNR Class of 2005 The Pretenders - RNR Percy Sledge - not RNR Class of 2010 The Stooges - RNR Jimmy Cliff - not RNR I don't think anyone "narrowly defined" anything in here. Common sense says RnB/Soul/Rap doesn't belong in a RNRHOF anymore than punk/hair/glam/garage rock belongs in a country music HOF. Sheesh man. I think sometimes you enjoy being the contrarian too much. All of the artists in the RnRHOF I'm sure are deserving in their induction into some kind of HOF, and if it's a general music one I'm totally cool with it. In fact their website says this "the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is alive with the energy, passion and the spirit of music". I can totally buy that. Just drop the RnR moniker, because using that is like Budweiser saying it's the King of Beers. Total bullshit and misleading. I have no idea what is so contrarian about either view. Of course, there is a narrow sense in which "rock" is only a narrow band of music. The broader usage of the term rock and roll (which is what the hall uses and what I've been trying to point out) has been around since, when? The 1950's. None of the groups that were first coined "rock and roll" music writers/performers would qualify today by your and others definition of rock in the narrow sense. We get that. But, that's not the sense in which the Hall is using the term. That's the point. It's not that debateable. And it is again anachronistic/revisionist to exclude that usage of the word by the term you are more familar with in a more modern era. I don't think this should be confused with stating that blues, jazz, and big band music are rock. You've got a fine point there. It isn't EVERYTHING. But heck, if the RnR HOF admitted any artists from those genres becuase of their extreme influence on the genesis or evolution of rock and roll, they'd certainly be reasonable doing so. Additionally, those genres that have spawned from rock and roll (everything from metal to mowtown to pop) are rightly part of the broad definition. Is Elvis rightly in the HOF? He was rockabilly, doesn't fit today's "rock" definition or does he? Are the Beatles? They were pop. No idea what is so contrarian here. I'm not the one opposing the HOF's broadly determined defintions and worthy artists. Opposing that is the same as striking a broadly recognized definintion of a word from the English langauge. That sounds pretty contrarian. I think Eric mentioned in a reply that he conjures up a different image of what RnR is defined as. Elvis, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent...all pioneers for Rock and belong in there as such. RnR didn't start with stoner rock in the 70's. And I sure don't consider "rock and roll" a term that changes thru the decades. To me, it either is or it isn't and if the Hall wants to err on the side of caution and admit someone that is borderline...I'm fine with that. But to admit artists that are blatantly NOT RnR shows that they want to be all inclusive to all forms of music. So that means it should just be called the Musicians Hall of Fame, Pop Music or Billboard Hall of Fame or something that that doesn't project a particular kind of music. Because when they allow artists that have nothing to do with that style of music the Hall is named for and then blatantly omit bands/musicians that have RnR stampted all over their resume it loses all credibility with fans. I think Eric hit it dead on: anecdotal is all you can do. I took a look at wikipedia, which isn't the best source for research, but it isn't a bad baseline. In it, if you look under "rock and roll," the article on the "50's" music, you actually see that "Rock," "Rockabilly," and "Pop" are derivative forms. I think that is my point. That's all the RnR HOF is claiming to be. Not any one subgroup there. Once you start getting narrower, it is near impossible and super subjective. Under the article for "Pop Rock," you'll find both Elton John and Billy Joel listed. Yet, above they were "Rock" and not pop. Earth, Wind, and Fire being barred from a classification of rock is equally problematic. The wiki article on them properly gives them credit for being such. And, in fact, exclusion of them and R&B from the broad category of rock and roll is racially sad, almost a reversal of not recognizing the early pioneers that were black and from the blues/jazz genres of music. The earliest forms of rock and roll were white men popularizing and stealing the well established music of black men.

You lost me when you start referring to wikipedia as a source of info EF. Sorry. Just because someone submitted an article to wikipedia staing that a band should be catergorized under a particular label, doesn't make it so. However, I see the point what your are getting at and it is all anecdotal. So how do you feel about bands like Anthrax or Aerosmith (for example) getting voted into a RnBHOF (if/when one exists)? At some point in the future, I'm sure if things stay the same Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga and Niki Manaj (and whatever current megapopular artist is) will be in the RnRHOF. You're good with that, right? I guess in the end, like with sports, that the HOF should be much more than a popularity contest and when athletes/musicians (whatever the topic) are let in that are borderline (at best) inductees, it dilutes the quality/purpose of the Hall. Some are good with it, like yourself. Myself, I find the RNRHOF lacking until they begin to induct bands that have influenced RNR and not RNB/blues/soul whose influence is tangibly less impactful..

quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 You lost me when you start referring to wikipedia as a source of info EF. Sorry. Just because someone submitted an article to wikipedia staing that a band should be catergorized under a particular label, doesn't make it so. However, I see the point what your are getting at and it is all anecdotal. So how do you feel about bands like Anthrax or Aerosmith (for example) getting voted into a RnBHOF (if/when one exists)? At some point in the future, I'm sure if things stay the same Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga and Niki Manaj (and whatever current megapopular artist is) will be in the RnRHOF. You're good with that, right? I guess in the end, like with sports, that the HOF should be much more than a popularity contest and when athletes/musicians (whatever the topic) are let in that are borderline (at best) inductees, it dilutes the quality/purpose of the Hall. Some are good with it, like yourself. Myself, I find the RNRHOF lacking until they begin to induct bands that have influenced RNR and not RNB/blues/soul whose influence is tangibly less impactful..

Sounds like you didn't get lost. That's exactly why I quoted it. We could look through credible after credible source and find the same thing. Point made: it is anecdotal, and that puts this all right back to an inability to objectively / non-arbitrarily cut off "Rock and Roll" from many reasonable subgenres. By definition, many of them already are RnR. But you're confounding two different things. Don't confuse my advocating the consideration of Pop artists with an automatic vote that they get in. Worthiness (pure skill and talent for example) and popularity can be two different things. In music it is difficult to discern the two. In baseball, you can look at stats. The stats for music are largely popularity based and therefore counfounded. But to disqualify Madonna and allow Elton John or Billy Joel becuase of a false genre drawn line..... is the point I was trying to argue was flawed. The objective means by whether any of those are "good" enough to be in a HOF.... That's the difficult issue to settle objectively and quantitative. There is certainly a "popularity" element at play. And if we're considering "impact" on the Rock and Roll (broadly speaking) scene, it is hard to completely disqualify any of the popularity "stats" for the consideration. But you're right, popularity alone should land someone in a HOF. It also shouldn't disqualify them (GnR, should they be in? Should they be disqualified simply because they were popular? How about Michael Jackson? I'm curious about that one.) I don't have an answer. Cutting out whole sub-genres just seemed too simple to me in the first place. It's not that simple what Rock and Roll is.

I guess people need to ask the question.............what makes Rock and Roll....Rock and Roll? Led Zeppelin (whom I'm assuming most people on this board would put in a "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame) were a drummer, a bass player, and a guitarist (and a vocalist). The vast majority of Madonna's songs employ a drummer (and the drummer on Like A Virgin and True Blue (the late Tony Thompson) was one of the drummers that Led Zeppelin employed at Live Aid in 1986) , a bass player, and two guitarists. Led Zeppelin's last two studio albums (In Through The Out Door and Coda) both feature extensive computerized drumming programmed by Jimmy Page. What makes one 'Rock and Roll' and the other 'Pop'?

quote: Originally posted by cyrenaica I guess people need to ask the question.............what makes Rock and Roll....Rock and Roll? Led Zeppelin (whom I'm assuming most people on this board would put in a "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame) were a drummer, a bass player, and a guitarist (and a vocalist). The vast majority of Madonna's songs employ a drummer (and the drummer on Like A Virgin and True Blue (the late Tony Thompson) was one of the drummers that Led Zeppelin employed at Live Aid in 1986) , a bass player, and two guitarists. Led Zeppelin's last two studio albums (In Through The Out Door and Coda) both feature extensive computerized drumming programmed by Jimmy Page. What makes one 'Rock and Roll' and the other 'Pop'?

Well times have changed because there really aren't many "rock and roll" bands anymore like there was in the 60's and 70's. Rock has been a song created around a guitar riff, sometimes distortion, prominent vocals backed up by a strong bass/drum combo...musicianship/technical skills are showcased. Pop is usually dance oriented rhythm, simple melodies and musicianship sometimes takes a backseat to the singer. Far from well thought out, so be nice...lol.

quote: Originally posted by cyrenaica What makes one 'Rock and Roll' and the other 'Pop'?

I know it when I hear it! [B)] When Skrillex, Pitbull and Lady Gaga are admitted in 20 years, I can shake my old man fist at the sky!

Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk, it's still rock and roll to Eaglefan [}:)]