Page 2 of 3

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:18 pm
by Menolly
So it should be renamed The Pop Hall of Fame?

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:20 pm
by sgt.null
the middle of the road, names the people will recognize hall of fame

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:21 pm
by Cail
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.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:52 pm
by emotional leper
It should be renamed the Pop Hall of Suck.

[edit] Particularly if Madonna's in it.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:37 pm
by Ki
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.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:19 pm
by Mortice Root
Ah, KiGirl, you'd best not be callin' Miles Davis "crap", or "pop". 'Cause if so, dem's fightin' words! ;) :D (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 :twisted: )

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:24 pm
by danlo
I blame Aerosmith :P

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:46 pm
by Ki
Mortice Root wrote:Ah, KiGirl, you'd best not be callin' Miles Davis "crap", or "pop". 'Cause if so, dem's fightin' words! ;) :D (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 :twisted: )
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.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:41 pm
by Ki
mortice, i'm gonna need some forgiveness here. :)

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:41 pm
by Mortice Root
Sorry Ki, I've been out for a bit.

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

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:26 pm
by Ki
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.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:06 pm
by The Laughing Man
:2c: 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.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:43 am
by sgt.null
Throwing Muses need to be in the alt-rock hall of fame. with Husker Du, the Minutemen and the Pixies.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:02 pm
by Zarathustra
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."

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:33 am
by The Dreaming
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.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:04 pm
by Cagliostro
Oh, Dreaming, you are so pretentious... :D

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:07 pm
by The Laughing Man
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? :?

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:19 pm
by Cagliostro
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?

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:52 pm
by danlo
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! :P

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:20 am
by The Laughing Man
:R