Search this Topic:
Feb 28 17 11:57 AM
Mar 1 17 7:41 AM
Underground Democrat wrote:IMO ,to put in The Blues Brothers (and again , I like them and I think they served a useful purpose) before Koko Taylor , Sir Mack Rice ,even an Englishman (Mad Dog?)like Joe Cocker ,would be asinine.
Mar 1 17 3:25 PM
Charles Crossley Jr wrote:Underground Democrat wrote:IMO ,to put in The Blues Brothers (and again , I like them and I think they served a useful purpose) before Koko Taylor , Sir Mack Rice ,even an Englishman (Mad Dog?)like Joe Cocker ,would be asinine.. . . and before the Clovers, would be insane.
Mar 8 17 1:27 PM
Mar 8 17 3:17 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:BST should definitely be inducted, just for their first 3 albums alone. As for The Blues Brothers, of course they don't have the artistic genius that the people they have covered did, BUT they had a much greater cultural impact than most people. Let's face it, they have converted a lot of young people since the 1980s to become Blues/Soul/Rock'n'Roll fans, and their cultural significance can't be denied anymore than Madonna's. I mean, Madonna wasn't any more musically talented than The Blues Brothers, let's be honest! She can carry a tune and is great at what she does, and so did the BB.
NONE of them (same is true to some other RR hall of famers) are on the same musical level as Koko Taylor or Joe Cocker or anywhere even close. If they only cared about musical talent and artistic creativity, and absolutely nothing else, Madonna would be out, Sex Pistols would be out, Janet Jackson wouldn't even be nominated, and instead they would be inducting The Zombies, Rare Earth, Vanilla Fudge, Mitch Ryder and Canned Heat.
So the point is, a great cultural impact does count and does make up sometimes for not having the greatest musical skills, and I believe The Blues Brothers are hall of fame material, no less than some of the others who were already inducted mostly for their cultural influence and not so much their outstanding virtuoso musicianship/singing.
Mar 8 17 6:22 PM
Mar 9 17 12:47 PM
But, Madonna and The Sex Pistols' material was original"True, but it was really nothing that wasn't done before musically, if we really get critical. You know how much I LOVE The Sex Pistols, and yet I agree with John Lennon's view that The Beatles did pretty much all that in Hamburg when they were 17...Chuck Berry felt the same way about Punk Rock, he likes it but it wasn't anything to him that he hasn't done. As for Madonna, I like her songs too, some of it I love and sing along with when it comes on the radio, as I also do with Duran Duran, Yazoo and A Flock of Seagulls...it's all nice 1980s pop, very listenable, very catchy and I like it, but musically genius or original from a creative point of view? Hardly.
" and she/they are sociological icons on a Presley/Beatles level (and I would say sociology is the #1 why the R+RHoF gets way more publicity each year than any other music HoF"No, not quite on Presley/Beatles level. They were CONTROVERSIAL on that level at one point, but they never reached the overall level of impact, to be fair, and certainly not due their musical genius.
",none of that can be said for the Blues Brothers ,or BS+T for that matter.
In any case,Charles is correct, to put the Blues Brothers in before The Clovers would be insanity,and IMO Sir Mack Rice is still more artistically deserving that either BB or BST."
Inducting Madonna before The Zombies, Canned Heat, Spencer Davis Group or any of those above you have just mentioned is a complete insanity in terms of musical judgement, and yet, the cultural impact and influence does count, for bretter and for worse.
Mar 9 17 3:09 PM
Mar 10 17 1:04 PM
THC,you're stating opinions (mostly yours) as if they were facts, that's called revisionism.The fact is Madonna has been in charge of every single aspect of her career from day one, the same can't be said about Elvis or The Beatles , maybe not even Dylan.I respect and admire Elton John , that doesn't mean I have to agree with him on every (or even any) single subject ,I think for myself ,no one else thinks for me.Look at any given objective essay on 1980s music ,you'll find lots of ink on Madonna ,very little on Duran Duran,I'm not impressed with Duran's songwriting. You can bring up what you don't like about Madonna ,that still doesn't change what many like about her,I mean no one ended up more pathetically than Clyde McPhatter did,that doesn't change what was great about him,so what if she's better in the studio than live? Exactly the same thing could have been said about the Byrds in 1965( and both McGuinn and Crosby have admitted that).Your obsessions against both Madonna and Taylor Swift defy logic,if you don't personally like their music ,fine,but you go way beyond that in an obsessive way to try and discredit them,and that makes no sense,I'm not the biggest fan of Queen's music, even much less so for Rush, but I can (now) be objective enough to see what their musics means to some people and why they are in the HoF, you can only see your own personal taste, nothing else.All the points you made about The Monkees ,I also made a year or two ago,and I still got called everything but a child of God,but I bet even those people would prefer putting the Monkees in before The Blues Bothers.I also loved Chubby Checker's recordings when I was a little kid in the early 60s(which was when he was actually making them),that is not reason enough to put him in the HoF.There are many Cameo-Parkway artists I'd put in the HoF way before Chubby Checker ,such as : The Orlons,The Tymes, The Dovells ,Dee Dee Sharp, maybe even white bread Bobby Rydell. Speaking of The Orlons:
Mar 10 17 2:50 PM
Mar 11 17 1:15 PM
Mar 11 17 2:13 PM
Mar 11 17 2:27 PM
Mar 11 17 2:48 PM
Mar 12 17 10:49 AM
TimeHasCome wrote:"Look, Dance music is a genre you are not into ,Madonna is a titan in Dance music ,so is Yoko Ono(who is also a titan in Alt,another genre you are not into) ,once again ,you are going by your own personal taste, nothing else. "
I told you I kinda like 1980s Dance pop, it has its time and place, and I love a lot of Madonna's tunes, "Material Girl" is great, "Borederline" is great, "Beautiful Stranger" is another one I always really loved. It's good listenable stuff. But did she have musical/artistic talent on the same level as real exceptionally gifted Pop artists like Prince, Michael Jackson, Cyndi Lauper, ABBA, Cher, or even Mariah Carey (at least back when Mariah could sing well, even though I like Madonna's music and don't really like Mariah's)? HELL NO! Like, not even close! And she's certainly not even in the same building as any Rhythm and Blues and Rock'n'Roll pioneers, in terms of being musically talented. Nothing to do with my personal taste.
As for Yoko, I like it when she sings actual songs with good lyrics, like some of the stuff from New York City and Double Fantasy, and unlike the great majority of Beatles fans, I do give her credit when due and will admit that there is talent there, but the whole out of key screaming and crying on top of Lennon's playing/singing is annoying, creepy and not listenable, and if somebody ruined my song like that, I would stop in the middle of performing it. I like some avant garde and it has its place and time, but not when somebody is singing "Hound Dog", or "Blues Suede Shoes" or "Johnny B. Goode" and you ruin it with bullshit noises! When I hear that, I feel like somebody peed in my glass of Johnny Walker Blue.
For you to rewrite the history of dance music is revisionism, to ignore her sociological impact would be that same as ignoring the sociological impact of Elvis or The Beatles.
I'm not, and I'm saying that the main real reason why she belongs in the hall of fame is simply because of the sociological impact. Elvis and The Beatles were exceptionally gifted musicians/singers, and their sociological impact was a cherry on top of the cake, not the actually cake.
You are right,almost everybody has managers and investors who sometimes pull their strings, Madonna avoided that ,and for better or worse took full charge of her career,a guy who is doing that today is Chance The Rapper, and he's showing good results in dong that, though he admits it would be easier to have a record company behind him, but he won't do it because he wants full control of his music ,the same for Madonna."
I understand that, and in that sense, I'm in the same boat too, which I believe worked fine for me so far. I fully manage my own career and always have.
Madonna lip synchs today,well Brian Wilson used autotune for No Peer Pressure ,and I don't give a sh!t,because I like the album."
I haven't been very impressed with any new Beach Boys-related music probably since "Kokomo", to be honest. I haven't heard "Pressure" yet, I'm sure it's a fine album that is well done but I probably won't like it as much as their 1960s and 1970s classics, just like I felt about the most recent Beach Boys album. I'll give it a listen though. But I really suspect that the auto tune used on it is for special modern effects, and not so much to cover for Brian Wilson singing out of key. I've seen him twice, once with the Beach Boys reunion and later on with Jeff Beck, Blondie Chaplin and Al Jardine, and while he is obviously not in the musical shape he was in 1965, due to age (he's almost as old as my grandparents) and life-long health issues, he still delivered, sang in tune (sometimes his voice was simply amazing) and gave a great honest performance that impressed me. And even when he does have some senior moments, at least that shows he's performing live, he never cheated me out of my money. The last time I've seen both B.B. King and Glen Campbell, they were in late Alzheimer's stage, and they still played and sang million circles around Madonna or anybody she influenced.
And again, at his prime, Brian Wilson was one of the best vocalists and songwriters ever lived, and a fine instrumentalist. Madonna, at her very best, was NEVER EVER musically on that kind of a level.
Again ,bringing up what you don't like about Madonna (or anybody else) is not going to change what people like about her or like about anybody else.
Then you owe Styx and Journey a BIG apology! Among others!
What I'm after he is intellectual honesty ,and IMO for anyone (including myself) to only go on only their own personal taste is intellectual dishonesty.
Dance music is as major a part of rock and roll as many other genre ,to be revisionist about it is no different than being revisionist about rockabilly ,blues, or soul.
Does that mean Britney Spears and Mandy Moore should get inducted into the RR hall of fame too, and should be considered every bit as important to Rock'n'Roll as Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Muddy Waters or Aretha Franklin?
You didn't see any Byrds concerts in 1965,neither did I and unlike you ,I was around then (although I was very young),but both McGuinn and Crosby have said this more than once,so did many people who saw them in concert then (Lester Bangs said they were so bad when he saw them live in '65 ,that he stayed away from buying the Mr. Tambourine Man album for awhile because of that),and the few audio tapes I've heard of them live in '65 back up that view."
I need to see/hear it first before I make up my mind. I can't simply go by whatever other people said. Please find me some youtubes or something, and I would be glad to check it out. What I know for a fact is that both Crosby and McGuinn sounded great live since 1968 and after.
IMO ,there were way worse songs in the 60s than that, again you have no objectivity at all,that hurts one in debate. "
Name me any that I may know! Even "sugar sugar" is probably not quite as bad!
No,I think the other Cameo -Parkway artists I mentioned (especially the Orlons and the Tymes)have passed the test of time, I don't think Chubby Checker has.
Hardly anybody remembers them, except for music nerds like us, while everybody remembers Chubby Checker and sing along with his songs every time they are being played. This is why he is still playing nice venues and fills up the seats. He has absolutely passed the test of time compared to most people of his genre. You may argue that he's overrated and that's fine, but you can't argue he didn't have a successful career or that most people don't know "The Twist" or "Let's Twist Again"!
And I still think Chase was a even better band that BS+T:"
A matter of opinion! Both bands are great to me, I don't know if one is better than the other, but BST definitely passed the test of time better.
Mar 12 17 1:00 PM
Mar 13 17 1:17 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:"Again, what I'm after here is honesty, outright honesty and intellectual honesty,I'm honest about my biases (and I'm honest about saying they could cloud my views), and I'm honest about trying not to be revisionist, you are not honest about that,you are trying to state your opinion as if it were history ,and (in the words of Lt. Aldo Raine)''I can't abide by that"."
Let me put it to you this way, I like and appreciate 1980s pop/dance stuff much more than you appreciate metal/prog/1970s "classic rock"/southern rock, including very influential bands, musicians with exceptional musical skills, and some of those who obviously passed the test of time with a grade of A+! As a critic, I'm being more fair towards certain genres than you are to some of the genres that you dislike. I showed more appreciation towards Madonna and other Pop artists than you ever have for legends who came from those genres, so you can't say I'm not being honest. Modern pop/dance may not be my favorite kind of music, neither is hip hop, but I can still tell a great rapper from BS, and I can still tell a great pop singer from somebody who can't sing worth of #%#*!
My preference of roots music has hardly anything to do with what I'm saying about Madonna. I can name people of Pop/Dance genre that I consider the real deal in terms of musical talent, who are probably more gifted and better musicians even than some of the artists that I personally prefer to listen to! Michael Jackson was real deal! Prince was absolutely the real deal and much better than some of the artists who's music I personally like better! Rick James was the real deal. Cyndi Lauper? Damn right! Pharell? Absolutely! Even acts I don't personally like...Lady Gaga's music is often an insult to my intelligence, but what a talent! Beyonce records even worse crap, and yet definitely a talented singer/performer, which is evident whenever she sings good R&B songs and not the usual crap! Adelle bores me mostly as well, but does she have a voice, she sure does! I can't listen to Justin Timberlake either, but he's certainly musically talented. On the other hand, I personally really like Madonna's tunes, but her level of talent is average at best. I think Britney Spears and Spice Girls have a few catchy tunes, and just like Madonna, are also culturally significant for that time, but their singing/musical abilities are even more limited, to say the least. And then you have Taylor Swift, who doesn't even know how to sing in tune and her songs are lame even if a 14 year old wrote them, but I don't feel that way because I'm "biased" towards other styles or because I hate country pop (when in fact, I like it when it's good...Dixie Chicks for starts!), it's just that I'm biased against mediocrity and karaoke amateur style of singing...of any genre!
Everything you said about Beach Boys/Brian Wilson today has nothing at all to do with the point that I made about him.
You said that you love his album despite him using auto-tune on it. I responded that he probably had the auto-tune for special effects and not to cover his inability to sing in key (something that he's still able to do from what I've seen live several times). And my secondary response is, even if Brian Wilson couldn't sing in key at this point, that still doesn't change the fact that at his prime he was one of the best vocalists, songwriters, musicians and producers ever lived. Madonna was never a great singer or musician even at her very prime.
It's unfair to bring up something I said about Styx in the 1990s when that is not exactly how I think today(and I even said that ,when talking about Rush earlier on in this thread),let's stay in 2017,shall we?"
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember a single good thing you said about Styx or implied that you changed your mind about them or Journey or Kansas or Molly Hatchet or Rush! And I can bring up a lot of Metal/hard rock bands that passed the test of time very well, who you probably dislike and wouldn't give much credit to. I do remember you complimenting the guys from Rush for being political liberals, but from an artistic criticism, I don't remember any positive feedback. Again, I may be wrong here, so please correct me.
''Music nerds like us" are what makes up the HoF, not the general public,and if BST get in(and BST are non-existent to the general public today, whereas Chicago is not), it will be for the first album more than anything else ,because most "music nerds " prefer that album to the others.Clayton Thomas will get in too,but he won't be that main reason.
The general public has never even heard of the first album, while CT's stuff is being played on the radio all the time, people are certainly familiar with many of their hits. Chicago too, and personally, I really like early Chicago and their later stuff isn't my cup of tea.
I strongly dislike the song "Sugar Sugar " ,even by my main man Wilson Pickett."
Oh, that song is absolutely f-ing terrible, never heard Wilson's version, but the only version I kinda liked was at Micky Dolenz's show, he completely changed it and turned it into a medium tempo Blues/early Motown style. And that's the only 1960s song that bothers me as much as Taylor Swift's songwriting.
"James Brown in his last years couldn't dance like he did, but ,he kept coming up with innovative moves and teaching his own dancers how to do them,and right to the end he kept coming up with stunning shows,but even he wasn't anymore what he was at the T.A.M.I. Show."
I saw him on his third or fourth show away from his final one, about 3 months before he passed. Could he dance like in the 1960s or even 1970s? No, but he still did his main moves, including the splits once! During his last years (he was in his 70s) he could actually hardly even walk outside of the stage, and each show put a huge toll on his body, unfortunately, because he wouldn't do much slowing down on stage, much less stop performing like the doctors told him many years ago. I found out all of that later, and at the time I've seen him, I would've NEVER guessed he was in anything less than perfect shape, unbelievable! Yes, he was only about 80% of the guy he was in his prime, but that was still superior to almost anybody else at their prime!
Britney Spears and Mandy Moore will be decided by future historians ,I don't know the music of either of them, so I can't make any judgment pro or con, let alone objective.
Mar 13 17 2:07 PM
Mar 16 17 2:48 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.