Rock & Roll Hall of Fame 2007 Inductees

[minus5]

There certainly are a lot of modern rock bands that cite KISS as a major influence on them. Then again a lot of modern rock band suck (see Nickleback) I kid, I Kid!! Not about them sucking but about the KISS thing. I like them, KISS that is. Nickleback, not so much.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by minus5

There certainly are a lot of modern rock bands that cite KISS as a major influence on them. Then again a lot of modern rock band suck (see Nickleback) I kid, I Kid!! Not about them sucking but about the KISS thing. I like them, KISS that is. Nickleback, not so much.

Too bad bands like Nickelback seem to have been influenced by the years when KISS went without make-up, as opposed to the years when KISS actually rocked.

[pedro]

KISS is a horrible band IMO. Other than 2 or 3 songs they're completely useless to me.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by pedro

KISS is a horrible band IMO. Other than 2 or 3 songs they're completely useless to me.

Re-listen to Hotter than Hell. It's a great, and incredibly weird, album. (Though the drum production may be the single worst drum production I've ever heard).

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Redsland

It's not the Hall of Longevity and Album Sales. If a band by its own admission makes the same album every year, particularly in a genre like "radio-friendly suburban rock," the band is historically disposable, IMHO.

So only "edgy" music that is considered out of the mainstream can be considered "important" or "worthy"? Please.

While I agree some of the people on the list are pretty lame, I absoulty disagree that if a musician/muscial act is widely popular and accepted that they are somehow horrible.

[minus5]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Re-listen to Hotter than Hell. It's a great, and incredibly weird, album. (Though the drum production may be the single worst drum production I've ever heard).

I like that album also. Honestly I liked a lot of their earlier stuff.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by minus5

I like that album also. Honestly I liked a lot of their earlier stuff.

Their first three albums rule. I think they're a lot weirder and more inventive than people give them credit for.

Kiss would definitely be enshrined if I had a vote.

[minus5]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Their first three albums rule. I think they're a lot weirder and more inventive than people give them credit for.

Kiss would definitely be enshrined if I had a vote.

Up to albums like Unmasked (eeK) and Dynasty I liked a lot of their stuff. Too many people are turned off by the makeup thing. A friend of mine can't stand them and mostly just because of the makeup. Says he couldn't take them seriously because of it. He likes Alice Cooper though.....

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by minus5

Up to albums like Unmasked (eeK) and Dynasty I liked a lot of their stuff. Too many people are turned off by the makeup thing. A friend of mine can't stand them and mostly just because of the makeup. Says he couldn't take them seriously because of it. He likes Alice Cooper though.....

That's funny, I've liked Kiss forever, but always turned my nose up at Cooper. I think it was Alice Cooper's song titles ("Dead Babies," etc.) that I could never cotton to. Now I love them both.

One band I'd never vote for, even though I love one of their albums, is Van Halen (love Fair Warning): they always sounded like three studio musicians playing in the same room, not a cohesive band.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by minus5

Up to albums like Unmasked (eeK) and Dynasty I liked a lot of their stuff. Too many people are turned off by the makeup thing. A friend of mine can't stand them and mostly just because of the makeup. Says he couldn't take them seriously because of it. He likes Alice Cooper though.....

What does that mean exactly? I've heard people say that about different people over the years and I have no idea whatsoever what that means. It's music that comes out of a speaker. You either like it or you don't. It either connects with you on some level or it doesn't. What's to "take serriously"? Sometimes people waaaaaaaaay overthink music.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

What does that mean exactly? I've heard people say that about different people over the years and I have no idea whatsoever what that means. It's music that comes out of a speaker. You either like it or you don't. It either connects with you on some level or it doesn't. What's to "take serriously"? Sometimes people waaaaaaaaay overthink music.

I guess I see what you mean, but you got to admit that there is a serious drop in gravitas from the sublime heights of "Like a Hurricane" to, say, Weird Al's "I'm Gonna Buy Me a Condo." I mean, no, neither is The Aeneid, but I can understand why someone's sensibility might be rubbed the wrong way by the lyrics being stupid as opposed to the music not grabbing them.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I guess I see what you mean, but you got to admit that there is a serious drop in gravitas from the sublime heights of "Like a Hurricane" to, say, Weird Al's "I'm Gonna Buy Me a Condo." I mean, no, neither is The Aeneid, but I can understand why someone's sensibility might be rubbed the wrong way by the lyrics being stupid as opposed to the music not grabbing them.

Aren't the lyrics part of the music though?

As a musician (and now an actor) I have a preconcieved notion of Justin Timberlake, for example. I guess I'd say I have a hard time thinking of him as a musician, perhaps that's whats part of "taking them serriously" means. OTOH, I can't stop listening to "Rock your Body" either.

But I can see your point.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

(Though the drum production may be the single worst drum production I've ever heard).

Nah. The Church released an album in...1983, I believe, entitled "Remote Luxury". The drums on that album sound hideously awful. The 80s were a time when nearly all drums had that gated-reverb thing going on, and for the most part they all sounded like crap. But "Remote Luxury" took things to a new level of awfulness. The snare drum sounded like the drummer was whacking a linoleum floor with a spoon in a large concert hall. Blech.

[Redsland]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

So only "edgy" music that is considered out of the mainstream can be considered "important" or "worthy"?

I absoulty disagree that if a musicial/muscial act is widely popular and accepted that they are somehow horrible.

I never said either of those things. I haven't decried the presence of popular, non-edgy Billy Joel in the Hall, although it begs the question why Steve Miller isn't there. And I gave a nod to Phil Collins in the other thread, which will probably cost me my Man Card.

In fact, their total lack of popular acceptance makes me want to question the presence of The Velvet Underground in the Hall. After all, how can you be "important" if so few people noticed you? In their case, though, I accept the opinion of musical historians who state that "although only a thousand people bought Velvet Underground albums, every one of them seemed to start a band." Therefore, they were important and influential despite low sales.

My criteria for the Hall would be (in no particular order):
1. Importance to and innovation within their genre (Beatles, Sex Pistols)
2. Widely influential to other musicians during and/or after their time (Pink Floyd, Elvis Costello)
3. Prolific and solid OR meteoric hit machine (Prince, Sly and the Family Stone)
4. Oustanding musicianship (Rush, Clapton)
5. Enough popularity to have achieved the name recognition demanded of a hall of "fame" (sorry 'bout that, Husker Du and Lemonheads).

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Redsland

I never said either of those things. I haven't decried the presence of popular, non-edgy Billy Joel in the Hall, although it begs the question why Steve Miller isn't there. And I gave a nod to Phil Collins in the other thread, which will probably cost me my Man Card.

In fact, their total lack of popular acceptance makes me want to question the presence of The Velvet Underground in the Hall. After all, how can you be "important" if so few people noticed you? In their case, though, I accept the opinion of musical historians who state that "although only a thousand people bought Velvet Underground albums, every one of them seemed to start a band." Therefore, they were important and influential despite low sales.

My criteria for the Hall would be (in no particular order):
1. Importance to and innovation within their genre (Beatles, Sex Pistols)
2. Widely influential to other musicians during and/or after their time (Pink Floyd, Elvis Costello)
3. Prolific and solid OR meteoric hit machine (Prince, Sly and the Family Stone)
4. Oustanding musicianship (Rush, Clapton)
5. Enough popularity to have achieved the name recognition demanded of a hall of "fame" (sorry 'bout that, Husker Du and Lemonheads).

Oh....that makes total sense and I would agree with you with your criteron.

But I'd also argue that AC/DC meet numbers 2 and 3 on your list.