Rock & Roll Hall of Fame 2007 Inductees

[Dom Heffner]

Dom, Night Ranger, is the Clock Restaurant of California Pop Metal.

WOY, your insight is felt at every corner of this board.

[Redsland]

Originally Posted by Chip R

But are they HOF worthy?

Bobby Darin is in.
The Animals are in.
Rod Stewart is in.
The Bee Gees are in.
The Mamas and the Papas are in.
Aerosmith is in.
AC/DC is in.
Blondie is in.

I mean, really...what are the criteria? Two monster hits? Five good years? A decade of medicrity? Two decades of mediocrity?

The bar is mighty low, IMHO. If AC/DC is a Hall of Fame act...if Rod Stewart is a Hall of Famer, then anyone with two or three gold albums belongs. That ain't right.

Heck, in 1989, Stevie Wonder was inducted with Dion. In 2000, Eric Clapton shared the stage with Bonnie Raitt. Folks, those equations are not balanced.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Redsland

If AC/DC is a Hall of Fame act...

Oh, come on. Why WOULDN'T AC/DC be considered a HofF act? What have they *not* done that should warrant them being excluded?

Nearly 30 years together playing and touring, countless hits, ridiculous numbers of albums sold, one of the most well-known bands in rock music history--I'd argue that if a band of their caliber *doesn't* make it in, then the Hall is indeed a farce.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by westofyou

But you already said that Station to Station was the greatest song of all time.... I like that pick myself.

You're right. "S to S" is better. But it's like the two songs inhabit different universes.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Redsland

Bobby Darin is in.
The Animals are in.
Rod Stewart is in.
The Bee Gees are in.
The Mamas and the Papas are in.
Aerosmith is in.
AC/DC is in.
Blondie is in.

I mean, really...what are the criteria? Two monster hits? Five good years? A decade of medicrity? Two decades of mediocrity?

The bar is mighty low, IMHO. If AC/DC is a Hall of Fame act...if Rod Stewart is a Hall of Famer, then anyone with two or three gold albums belongs. That ain't right.

Heck, in 1989, Stevie Wonder was inducted with Dion. In 2000, Eric Clapton shared the stage with Bonnie Raitt. Folks, those equations are not balanced.

I agree that the bar is set low. But just because one - or a bunch - of lame acts are in, does it justify another one going in?

[Redsland]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Oh, come on. Why WOULDN'T AC/DC be considered a HofF act? What have they *not* done that should warrant them being excluded?

Nearly 30 years together playing and touring, countless hits, ridiculous numbers of albums sold, one of the most well-known bands in rock music history--I'd argue that if a band of their caliber *doesn't* make it in, then the Hall is indeed a farce.

So you're saying Duran Duran, Loverboy, The Village People, Air Supply, Michael Bolton, Judas Priest, ABBA, Barry Manilow, The Scorpions, REO Speedwagon, Jimmy Buffet, Rick Springfield, The Monkees, Glen Campbell, and Johnny Mathis belong?

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.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by Redsland

Bobby Darin is in.
The Animals are in.
Rod Stewart is in.
The Bee Gees are in.
The Mamas and the Papas are in.
Aerosmith is in.
AC/DC is in.
Blondie is in.

I mean, really...what are the criteria? Two monster hits? Five good years? A decade of medicrity? Two decades of mediocrity?

The bar is mighty low, IMHO. If AC/DC is a Hall of Fame act...if Rod Stewart is a Hall of Famer, then anyone with two or three gold albums belongs. That ain't right.

Heck, in 1989, Stevie Wonder was inducted with Dion. In 2000, Eric Clapton shared the stage with Bonnie Raitt. Folks, those equations are not balanced.

I'm not sure of your age, but I think the Hall takes a wider view of a musical form that now is over fifty years old. What might seem as if it isn't even Rock N Roll now, clearly was an element of the music during it's time. Some of it's musical, some of it's having brought forward significant acts in their wake or because of the tutelage. Take for instance, The Mamas & Papas. In their day, the folk sound clearly merged with rock (as evidenced by groups such as The Byrds or The Lovin' Spoonful), but also the part they played introducing other significant acts to the mainstream as the driving force behind the Monterrey Pop Festival (Hendrix, Otis Redding, The Who). I remember telling my son once that the music scene was not so compartmentalized as it is today.

The Hall also has a wider range of categories that are voted on more often than say the Baseball HOF. Besides performers they have Non-Performers (record label owners/producers etc.), Early Influences (Bill Monroe for example) and in 2000 they added a category called Sidemen which has brought in about a dozen important and talented (and deserving) musicians (including Chet Atkins whose known more as a country/blue grass artist, but who was a session man for a large number of important Rock acts).

I think it's a more eclectic group this way. Clearly there are omissions and hopefully those will be rectified as the years go by.

[Redsland]

redzmetz;

All of the acts I named were from the Performer category, and I agree that it's a good idea to have other categories for influential people like Clive Davis to aspire to.

If the mission of the Hall is to hail the leading acts of their respective days, then why are influential pioneers like Chubby Checker on the outside looking in when flashes in the pan like the Mamas and the Papas get the nod? Sure, they were important members of the folk movement for a brief time, but had nowhere near the impact of Crosby Stills and Nash, who are already enshrined in the Hall. Meanwhile guys like George Harrison make it for both their band and their solo careers, while guys like Pete Townshend don't.

I think it's a great idea to honor the luminaries of different eras. That can be the only reason the Bee Gees made it, for example. But then why aren't The Hollies or Cat Stevens or The Guess Who in? Traffic made it in but Derek and the Dominoes didn't? Yes to Black Sabbath, no to Blue Oyster Cult? It doesn't make any sense.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Redsland

Yes to Black Sabbath, no to Blue Oyster Cult?

I guess they needed more cowbell.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by Redsland

redzmetz;

All of the acts I named were from the Performer category, and I agree that it's a good idea to have other categories for influential people like Clive Davis to aspire to.

If the mission of the Hall is to hail the leading acts of their respective days, then why are influential pioneers like Chubby Checker on the outside looking in when flashes in the pan like the Mamas and the Papas get the nod? Sure, they were important members of the folk movement for a brief time, but had nowhere near the impact of Crosby Stills and Nash, who are already enshrined in the Hall. Meanwhile guys like George Harrison make it for both their band and their solo careers, while guys like Pete Townshend don't.

I think it's a great idea to honor the luminaries of different eras. That can be the only reason the Bee Gees made it, for example. But then why aren't The Hollies or Cat Stevens or The Guess Who in? Traffic made it in but Derek and the Dominoes didn't? Yes to Black Sabbath, no to Blue Oyster Cult? It doesn't make any sense.

I agree there is some question as to why certain acts get in and others don't. And some you mentioned certainly seem deserving. While seemingly inexplicable, I think though, I like the broader scope of its supposed voting method (outlined on the Hall's site). It includes historians, by the way, and I'm guessing, once eligible, you can never not be ineligible.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Redsland

It's not the Hall of Longevity and Album Sales.

Not entirely, but that's a large portion of it. It is the hall of "fame", after all. The problem with things like the Rock Hall is that it attempts to place quantifiable metrics to something that is inherently immeasurable by those terms.

It's not just about musicianship, originality or influence--there are plenty of bands and artists who possess some or all of those criteria who will never see the inside of the Hall. Fame, notoriety and longevity also play a role. And simply because an artist's music may not be the most ground-breaking, interestign stuff on Earth does not mean that they did not contribute in other ways. What AC/DC did may have been pedestrian, but they did it exceptionally well--and their name, songs, sound, band members and logo are familiar to anyone with a whiff of an interest in hard rock.

Personally, I think artists like KISS or Eric Clapton are lacking in a number of qualities that I would assign to HoF inductees, but I also understand what they did that got them in there. Ditto a group like AC/DC.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Redsland

I think it's a great idea to honor the luminaries of different eras. That can be the only reason the Bee Gees made it, for example. But then why aren't The Hollies or Cat Stevens or The Guess Who in? Traffic made it in but Derek and the Dominoes didn't? Yes to Black Sabbath, no to Blue Oyster Cult? It doesn't make any sense.

I agree that there appears to be a great amount of inconsistency, but then that only serves as a reminder of the completely arbitrary process through which acts are inducted to begin with.

[BoydsOfSummer]

Air Supply, Loverboy, The Village People and Michael Freakin' Bolton are in there and people are questioning KISS? Great googly-moogly.

Iron Maiden should be in also.

[minus5]

Originally Posted by BoydsOfSummer

Air Supply, Loverboy, The Village People and Michael Freakin' Bolton are in there and people are questioning KISS? Great googly-moogly.

Iron Maiden should be in also.

I don't believe that they are in there. They are simply all eligible.

[BoydsOfSummer]

Okay. They are eligible and people are questioning KISS? Great googly moogly!