EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
19 nominees for next year's Rock & Roll Hall of Fame class have been announced. Noticeably absent are Soundgarden. 5 finalists from this list will be inducted. I'm not sure what happens to the other 14, but I don't think it's necessarily the end for them. (Asterisks in the list above indicate first-time nominees.)
As for what a "Hall of Fame" should represent, I lean towards the most influential, important, or trailblazing, regardless of popularity and commercial success. The really famous and successful don't need any more recognition; that's what being famous and successful is already. And, honestly, a lot of times the public are behind the curve, and it's the 2nd or 3rd wave of a given style or era that captures the zeitgeist. That said, I have to check myself and not withhold the credit someone is due just because they're popular and successful.
I also don't have a problem with the use of the term "rock & roll" here to mean "popular music from the last 60 years." I know some people take umbrage at the inclusion of jazz, R&B, and other artists, but... *shrug*.
From this list, I can scratch Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who I've never even heard of, right away. I'll also scratch Depeche Mode; I like them fine, but I always felt they were kind of derivative, a watered-down version of other bands I liked more ("How do you sell 100 million Bauhaus records? Call them Depeche Mode.") Dire Straits and Bon Jovi aggravated the [crap] out of me back in the day, when they were on the radio incessantly, so they're off my list.
Right now, I'm only settled on The Meters and Nina Simone. If you've ever been a fan of The Red Hot Chili Peppers and haven't yet listened to The Meters' Rejuvenation, you may be in for a little shock. I've been listening to a lot of Nina Simone lately, purely by coincidence. I was a huge fan of Kate Bush and The Eurythmics back in the day, but I'm trying to separate that from "important." Maybe I'm overthinking it.
Anyway, that's me. What about you?
As for what a "Hall of Fame" should represent, I lean towards the most influential, important, or trailblazing, regardless of popularity and commercial success. The really famous and successful don't need any more recognition; that's what being famous and successful is already. And, honestly, a lot of times the public are behind the curve, and it's the 2nd or 3rd wave of a given style or era that captures the zeitgeist. That said, I have to check myself and not withhold the credit someone is due just because they're popular and successful.
I also don't have a problem with the use of the term "rock & roll" here to mean "popular music from the last 60 years." I know some people take umbrage at the inclusion of jazz, R&B, and other artists, but... *shrug*.
From this list, I can scratch Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who I've never even heard of, right away. I'll also scratch Depeche Mode; I like them fine, but I always felt they were kind of derivative, a watered-down version of other bands I liked more ("How do you sell 100 million Bauhaus records? Call them Depeche Mode.") Dire Straits and Bon Jovi aggravated the [crap] out of me back in the day, when they were on the radio incessantly, so they're off my list.
Right now, I'm only settled on The Meters and Nina Simone. If you've ever been a fan of The Red Hot Chili Peppers and haven't yet listened to The Meters' Rejuvenation, you may be in for a little shock. I've been listening to a lot of Nina Simone lately, purely by coincidence. I was a huge fan of Kate Bush and The Eurythmics back in the day, but I'm trying to separate that from "important." Maybe I'm overthinking it.
Anyway, that's me. What about you?