2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    From Yahoo.com:

    NEW YORK (AP) — Long ago, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts professed their love for rock 'n' roll. It's time to see if the feeling runs both ways.

    The iconic rock act is on the list of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees for the 2012 class released Tuesday. Women who rock feature prominently among first-time nominees. Joining Jett, whose "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" remains a classic rock standard 30 years after its release, are sister act Heart and Rufus with Chaka Khan.

    They're joined by Guns 'N Roses, hip-hop pioneers Eric B. & Rakim, glum glam Goths The Cure and The Small Faces/The Faces, which includes Rod Stewart. Bluesman Freddie King and The Spinners are also first-time nominees on the ballot for the hall's 2012 class.

    Previous nominees up again include The Beastie Boys, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Donna Summer, Laura Nyro, Donovan and War and its an eclectic group, running from lush British folk to classic early beats and bone-crushing power rock.

    An act must have released its first single or album 25 years ago to qualify for induction. More than 500 voters will determine who makes the hall. New members will be inducted at a ceremony at the hall of fame in Cleveland on April 14.

    The leather-clad and tough-as-nails Jett was an early icon for women. A founding member of the all-female The Runaways, she went on to become a chart-topping success after forming the Heartbreakers in 1982.

    Heart similarly made an indelible mark on the rock scene of the 1970s and '80s. Among the first women to front an aggressive rock band, singer Ann Wilson and her sister, guitarist Nancy Wilson, cut some of the era's most memorable songs, from "Barracuda" to "Magic Man," and inspired a generation of women along the way.

    Then a teen, Khan burst on the seen with the Chicago-based Rufus in the 1970s. She defied easy categorization, moving easily between R&B, rock and disco before going onto an enviable solo career.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    But no room for Deep Purple, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, or Blue Oyster Cult.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    i love the beastie boys and all, but their inclusion is laughable.
    the whole thing is...but we've established this, haven't we?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]I'm trying to put aside my natural disdain for Guns and Roses and evaluate their nomination objectively..... Nope,  they've done nothing that earns them entry into any real HOF.  Or even this semi-bogus one.  It's their all round suckitude,  where are the tunes?   Even the hits,  all three of them, are mediocre. One of those is a bad Dylan cover.  This is Hall of Fame material? Puh-lease. I'd buy Slash a ticket if he wants to take a look around, he seems like a nice guy and he's a very good player.  The rest I wouldn't even do that for.
    Posted by SlimPickensIII[/QUOTE]

    Have to disagree on the GnR issue. They have the songs, just not the longevity. They have the impact, just not the monster catalogue. They redefined the 80's scene. It was not Nirvana, as everyone wants to believe. And their cover of Knockin on Heavens Door is as good a cover as I have ever heard. I agree with others that feel they should not get in on their first try. This band should have done more, but Axl's axle was loose. Too many bands need to get in before them, some already listed on this thread (Deep Purple, ELP, etc.). But if the Sex Pistols and Metallica can get in, then I have no issue with Guns.

    I am all for Joan Jett getting in, but I wish her first band, The Runaways would be acknowledged by this lame museum. Heart as well, but again, too many bands before them. I would love to see the Small Faces/Faces get inducted, but they really are two different bands. I love The Cure, put them in, but where is the nomination for Joy Division?

    Someone explain why Wenner and crew will not give Dep Purple their due? This is the biggest snub out there.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE] They redefined the 80's scene. It was not Nirvana, as everyone wants to believe. And their cover of Knockin on Heavens Door is as good a cover as I have ever heard. I agree with others that feel they should not get in on their first try. But if the Sex Pistols and Metallica can get in, then I have no issue with Guns. [/QUOTE]

    whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


    nirvana's impact was really felt in the 90s. nevermind came out in 91, their previous material went largely unnoticed until after nevermind.

    G&R can have the 80's as far as I'm concerned...

    but KoHDas good a cover as any?  even limited to dylan covers alone, Hendrix's watchtower smokes it as far as i'm concerned.

    also, Sex Pistols and Metallica are two of the few well deserved spots in that HoF. take it back! Tongue out
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees : whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa nirvana's impact was really felt in the 90s. nevermind came out in 91, their previous material went largely unnoticed until after nevermind. G&R can have the 80's as far as I'm concerned... but KoHDas good a cover as any?  even limited to dylan covers alone, Hendrix's watchtower smokes it as far as i'm concerned. also, Sex Pistols and Metallica are two of the few well deserved spots in that HoF. take it back!
    Posted by phsmith8[/QUOTE]

    No way - Nirvana is the band that the critics wanted to give all the credit to when it came to the end of the Hair Metal scene, when in fact GnR had begun the process 4 years earlier. Nirvana is the over-hypedband in this discussion. Now that doesn't mean I don't think they were great, but let's all make sure that proper credit is guven where needed. Where are the Pixies & Husker Du when you need them

    If Pistols and Metallica warrant induction, so does GnR - end of convesation on that.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    I think it's too early for G&R to be considered. I always thought G&R came on the scene too late. They only really had a few years left of the hair bands ruling the land, before Nirvana seemingly overnight, caught fire and the metal hair band seem to disappear over night with it. 

    I feel they would have had a longer more successful run had they come out big in the the earlier part of that decade, when their style of music and look was in it's hay days.

    When the original line was all together they were one Really Good Band.  

    As far as the RRHOF, maybe someday, to me 2011 seems a bit too early.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    I don't know if I would give total credit to Nirvana for changing the landscape. A new generation was coming of age, and the metal hair bands they grew up with as kids was no longer working for them. It was ripe for change, and Nirvana happen to capitalize (timing is everything right).

    The whole look of the Grunge scene was a total 180 from the metal bands of the 80's. Gone was the sprayed up hair, spandex, and over the top stage look. The Grunge look was simple everyday clothes, the musicians looked like everyone else in the audience, more identifiable which was part of it's appeal.

    I can't say I miss the Grunge look, but I do miss when the guys or gals on stage looked like rock stars.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from agh1856. Show agh1856's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    The Rock and Roll "Hall of Fame" continues to embarass itself every year.  No Rush, no Kiss, no Judas Priest, no New Order, no Red Hot Chili Peppers, no Smiths... I mean is it really THAT hard?  It's impossible to take this "Hall of Fame" seriously.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    I also have to dissent:

    Guns n Roses and Nirvana followed totally different paths and left totally different legacies. Aside from sharing a few power chords, they are different branches on rock's family tree.

    IMO, both are over-hyped and self-imploded, so they share that, too.  But it's quite a stretch to compare the sunset strip scene of the 80s with the seattle dank club scene of the early 90s.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees : No way - Nirvana is the band that the critics wanted to give all the credit to when it came to the end of the Hair Metal scene, when in fact GnR had begun the process 4 years earlier. Nirvana is the over-hypedband in this discussion. Now that doesn't mean I don't think they were great, but let's all make sure that proper credit is guven where needed. Where are the Pixies & Husker Du when you need them If Pistols and Metallica warrant induction, so does GnR - end of convesation on that.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    with all due respect, sir

    GnR is a hard rock band, no doubt about that...but unfortunately, they are often lumped into the hair metal category by a lot of people, not only because of the time frame but because of similarities in music style and...their hair, haha.

    However, I don't think they were the end of the hair era, perhaps the percursor to the end...

    nirvana is a punk-influenced band, from the punk scene...i don't think GnR led towards/influenced nirvana in any way, at all. GnR was really good, and very different from many hair metal bands, but just not different enough to really start that trend and rock the industry.  nirvana didn't care what they looked like, their music has simple guitar/melodies, just raw emotion. not nearly as polished or ambitious as GnR, and the youth really identified with that.  I'd say the Sex Pistols and a few others started the movement that ultimately led to the demise of hair metal with Nevermind, even though they started before it was at its peak.

    Just because Nirvana might have gotten more hype than their talent "deserved," what they put out changed the landscape of the industry.

    Sex Pistols were big here, HUGE in Europe, and spawned countless punk bands.  GnR, i say holds about the same weight as cheap trick as far as influence.  IMO, not nearly as much.

    and i think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks GnR deserves the HoF as much as Metallica 



     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees : with all due respect, sir GnR is a hard rock band, no doubt about that...but unfortunately, they are often lumped into the hair metal category by a lot of people, not only because of the time frame but because of similarities in music style and...their hair, haha. However, I don't think they were the end of the hair era, perhaps the percursor to the end... nirvana is a punk-influenced band, from the punk scene...i don't think GnR led towards/influenced nirvana in any way, at all. GnR was really good, and very different from many hair metal bands, but just not different enough to really start that trend and rock the industry.  nirvana didn't care what they looked like, their music has simple guitar/melodies, just raw emotion. not nearly as polished or ambitious as GnR, and the youth really identified with that.  I'd say the Sex Pistols and a few others started the movement that ultimately led to the demise of hair metal with Nevermind, even though they started before it was at its peak. Just because Nirvana might have gotten more hype than their talent "deserved," what they put out changed the landscape of the industry. Sex Pistols were big here, HUGE in Europe, and spawned countless punk bands.  GnR, i say holds about the same weight as cheap trick as far as influence.  IMO, not nearly as much. and i think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks GnR deserves the HoF as much as Metallica 
    Posted by phsmith8[/QUOTE]

    First - I don't know anyone who has ever lumped GnR into the Hair Metal scene. And I was part of the scene, although admittedly on the older side. Their music was far edgier, except for Sweet Child of Mine. At the time of their prime, (Use your Illusions and the Black Album), when they had the mini tour together, Guns was the top bill. Metallica has basically done nothing since the Black album. The only thing they have done is stay together where Guns did not. And really, when Jason left, Metallica should have parted company there and then.

    Not comparing them to Nirvana at all. What I said is "Nirvana is the band that was given credit for the end of the Hair Metal scene. This in fact is a complete falsehood brought up by the lame critics. The Hair scene was already petering out and Guns gave it a big push out the door. If you look at the bands that followed Guns, you will see that the Aqua-Net and mascarra were gone (Skid Row, Trixter, etc.). Not his fault that Sebastian Bach was blessed with a great head of hair.

    The Grunge scene itself was no different than the Hair scene - it was a fad. Thankfully, one that really didn't last that long. As for Nirvana - they hit it big with some well crafted songs, a monster video and Butch Vig. Kurt did not want that album released as clean as it was. If they had gone the route that Cobain wanted, it is highly unlikely they would have soared like they did. And remember, Cobain was trying very hard to record music that sounded like the Pixies.

    Nirvana is about as Punk as Adam and the Ants. In fact, I would say that Nirvana was more Hard Rock/Metal, than punk.

    And the dig at Cheap trick is way unfair since I contend that CT had more influence on the 80's than Guns or Metallica had on the 90's.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    GnR might have been better and edgier musically than their peers, but they were still a product of that hair metal scene even as they tried to run away from it.  Back then, they were still what we called "posers", i.e. Aerosmith Jr.

    Meanwhile, Metallica was setting the course for where heavy metal would go from there.  "Master of Puppets" had already been out for a year by the time "AFD" was released.  Given the choice in virtually any category (not involving girls), I'll take 'Puppets' every time.

    So, I'll concur with jessey that Nirvana didn't really kill hair metal, but neither did GnR. 

    Metallica did.  And thank the ghost of cliff burton for that.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    i only said the cheap trick comment to gauge a reaction, no hard feelings  :) 

    nirvana may not have been a punk rock band, but thats the direct influence of grunge that i see, moreso than anything else.

    concur re: metallica too, matty.

    GnR: if hair metal was called something else (other than glam metal), i don't think they'd be as lumped in as they are
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    P.S.  That Nirvana has been far more celebrated (at least commercially) than the Pixies is nothing more than a case of aesthetic larceny and, I think, a source of despondence for Kurt at the time.  I'd wager that no artist truly wants to be elevated above their heroes...barring a total runaway ego, of course.

    How much that theory speaks to Axl Rose's public meltdown is pure speculation on my part.

    But methinks the other thread on Sly Stone and this discussion might be somewhat related....
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]GnR might have been better and edgier musically than their peers, but they were still a product of that hair metal scene even as they tried to run away from it.  Back then, they were still what we called "posers", i.e. Aerosmith Jr. Meanwhile, Metallica was setting the course for where heavy metal would go from there .  "Master of Puppets" had already been out for a year by the time "AFD" was released.  Given the choice in virtually any category (not involving girls), I'll take 'Puppets' every time. So, I'll concur with jessey that Nirvana didn't really kill hair metal, but neither did GnR.  Metallica did.  And thank the ghost of cliff burton for that.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I really don't see how Metallica, although the direct off shoot of Sabbath was so influential in what was to come. By the end of the 90's, you had far more Pearl Jam wannabe's out there then anything else. Anthrax had already made a push to other genre's which had more of a direct influence on Rap/Metal than anything Metallica did.

    As for Gun's being a bunch of poser's, I don't see that at all. Izzy, Duff and Slash were more punk than anything else. In fact, I would contend that Appetite for Destruction is more punk rock than anything Nirvana ever did. However, unlike Kurt, Axl wanted to be a rockstar and pushed the band in that direction. Appetite alone is far superior than anything Nirvana did.

    The good thing about music is that we all have different tastes and opinions, so what I may feel strongly about, others might not.

    What I do hope comes from this thread is the highlighting of bands like Purple, King Crimson, ELP, etc. who get absolutely no respect from this Hall of Shame.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE] I don't see that at all. Izzy, Duff and Slash were more punk than anything else. In fact, I would contend that Appetite for Destruction is more punk rock than anything Nirvana ever did. However, unlike Kurt, Axl wanted to be a rockstar and pushed the band in that direction. Appetite alone is far superior than anything Nirvana did. Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    i suspect that you have not listened to anything pre Nevermind by Nirvana, or you would never say that...they didn't start out with that more polished sound later defined as grunge...that had a lot to do with Vig, as you mentioned earlier.

    check out bleach, their '89 debut

     GnR was a hard rock band...i don't think that anyone would argue that.  the only thing punk about them was their attitudes.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees : i suspect that you have not listened to anything pre Nevermind by Nirvana, or you would never say that...they didn't start out with that more polished sound later defined as grunge...that had a lot to do with Vig, as you mentioned earlier. check out bleach, their '89 debut  GnR was a hard rock band...i don't think that anyone would argue that.  the only thing punk about them was their attitudes.
    Posted by phsmith8[/QUOTE]

    I certainly would ph. IMO, nothing Nirvana did was as good as AFD, pre or post Nevermind. Don't get me wrong, I love Nirvana. But I never bought into thir hype.

    As for Grunge itself, how should we actually define it. The big 4: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, AIC and Soundgarden. Why is AIC and Soundgarden considered grunge. I say it had more to do with style than musicality. Those two bands were as hard as they come. It is just a name of a fad, that's it.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    GnR is a no brainer they are in.

    Joan Jett and Heart should be in, as should the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, wish Deep Purple would get their due also.

    Others that I dont understand are not in Warren Zevon and Stevie Ray Vaughan, well at least they found room for Madonna(sigh).
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees:
    [QUOTE]But no room for Deep Purple, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, or Blue Oyster Cult.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]I was going to say the same thing. Scr#w the Rock and Roll hall of fame, It's all just a corporate scheme to sell more useless junk anyway.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees

    Has anyone here every visited the ugly building in Cleveland?
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share