The Term "ROCK" is blurred further

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:18 pm

So it should be renamed The Pop Hall of Fame?

Post by **sgt.null** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:20 pm

the middle of the road, names the people will recognize hall of fame

Post by **Cail** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:21 pm

No, it should be for rock bands. Madonna isn't rock. Miles Davis isn't rock. They've both made substantial contributions to music, but they have no business in a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Post by **emotional leper** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:52 pm

It should be renamed the Pop Hall of Suck.

[edit] Particularly if Madonna's in it.

Post by Ki » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:37 pm

Cail wrote:No, it should be for rock bands. Madonna isn't rock. Miles Davis isn't rock. They've both made substantial contributions to music, but they have no business in a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

agreed....why don't they just make up a Pop Hall of Fall for that crap.

Post by **Mortice Root** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:19 pm

Ah, KiGirl, you'd best not be callin' Miles Davis "crap", or "pop". 'Cause if so, dem's fightin' words!

(Actually, I'd just launch into a tirade about how cool he was...)

But I do totally agree that Miles has no business in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He had one studio album and some live stuff that could be considered rock, out of his almost 50 year recording career. By no stretch of the imagination a rock artist.

(as far as I'm concerened though, call Madonna pop or crap all you want

)

Post by **danlo** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:24 pm

I blame Aerosmith

Post by Ki » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:46 pm

Mortice Root wrote:Ah, KiGirl, you'd best not be callin' Miles Davis "crap", or "pop". 'Cause if so, dem's fightin' words! (Actually, I'd just launch into a tirade about how cool he was...)

But I do totally agree that Miles has no business in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He had one studio album and some live stuff that could be considered rock, out of his almost 50 year recording career. By no stretch of the imagination a rock artist.

(as far as I'm concerened though, call Madonna pop or crap all you want )

oh god no...sorry about being unclear. i was thinking more like madonna, not miles...he's a real musician and not pop. but probably doesn't need to be in the rock and roll hall of fame.

Post by Ki » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:41 pm

mortice, i'm gonna need some forgiveness here.

Post by **Mortice Root** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:41 pm

Sorry Ki, I've been out for a bit.

But there's really nuttin' to forgive. I was only joking wit ya.

Post by Ki » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:26 pm

Mortice Root wrote:Sorry Ki, I've been out for a bit.

But there's really nuttin' to forgive. I was only joking wit ya.

i figured you were jokin but i didn't want to chance it.

glad to see you back.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:06 pm

I don't think the founders intended for the title to be taken so literally. It's the Music Hall of Fame, and as such, everyone in it is perfectly acceptable. There are no other "Halls" anyway. What, we want the Jazz Fusion Hall of Fame? The Hardcore Acid Trance House Techno Hall of Fame?

define: rock n roll

A form of popular music arising from and incorporating a variety of musical styles, especially rhythm and blues, country music, and gospel. Originating in the United States in the 1950s, it is characterized by electronically amplified instrumentation, a heavily accented beat, and relatively simple phrase structure.

certainly leaves room for inclusion and interpretation.

Post by **sgt.null** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:43 am

Throwing Muses need to be in the alt-rock hall of fame. with Husker Du, the Minutemen and the Pixies.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:02 pm

Esmer wrote::. . . relatively simple phrase structure.

That must be why Rush isn't in it.

Actually, I think the roots of rock were much more like Madonna than, say, Metallica. Think about Beach Boys. Or Early Beatles. Chubby Checkers. Or the song, "Rock Around the Clock." Rock has its roots in what would today be called "pop."

Post by **The Dreaming** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:33 am

I always wondered what the Rock and Roll "elite" hated prog so much. I can't think of anything more pretentious than to call a piece of music pretentious. Artists can certainly be, but can music? Also, how complain about a piece of music being "over the top"? What the hell do you call Wagner!

It just seems like a pretentious way to complain about music having actual structural deapth.

Post by **Cagliostro** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:04 pm

Oh, Dreaming, you are so pretentious...

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:07 pm

Malik23 wrote:
Esmer wrote::. . . relatively simple phrase structure.
That must be why Rush isn't in it.

Actually, I think the roots of rock were much more like Madonna than, say, Metallica. Think about Beach Boys. Or Early Beatles. Chubby Checkers. Or the song, "Rock Around the Clock." Rock has its roots in what would today be called "pop."

absolutely! if Elvis is the "King of R&R", where does Led Zeppelin fit in? or Judas Priest?

Post by **Cagliostro** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:19 pm

Better yet, if we applied musicians to the Founding Fathers of America instead of to royalty, then who would we have?

Who the hell would George Washington be?
And who freed the slaves?

Post by **danlo** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:52 pm

Who the hell would George Washington be? Neil Young, but he's Canadian and we'd all be smoking spliffs like George Washington did...(nah, Buddy Holly!)

And who freed the slaves? easy, Jimi Hendrix!

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:20 am

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

The Term "ROCK" is blurred further