Gene Simmons: "Rappers don't belong in the R&R Hall of Fame"

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can't post further right now as there is this little matter called work that I must get back to, I would love to continue, I'm just out of time for today.

    'CLEAR CUT AND OBVIOUS' is possibly not always as clear cut and obvious as I believe it is... I agree.

    I am debating purely from a point of view that eludes most music fans. Sorry, but I cannot look at it any other way. 

    I believe that Deep Purple is a great band...and millions agree. I believe they are more influential than KISS and Guns'N'Roses.....but all are Rock bands. This is true.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are debating from your point of view and I am debating from mine. What makes yours more accurate than mine or vice versa? What qualifies as rock music in your view is only your view. It is not an objective fact. The rock music from the 50's is not the same as what followed it. It changed and evolved and branched out in many different ways. There is no one type of music called rock music. Buddy Holly's music is not equal to Metallica's. Both fall under the rock 'n' roll umbrella. Same with Little Richard and Jimi Hendrix. And Elvis Presley and Marilyn Manson; Rick Nelson and the Ramones; Jerry Lee Lewis and Bob Dylan. Get the picture? How do you know where to draw the line? Is everything The Beatles recorded rock 'n' roll by your  definition? Their recordings run the gamut from basic 50's style rock to complex studio created rock. That's the  beauty of rock music. It defies a strict and narrow definition. It branches out into seemingly countless variations. It knocks down walls and breaks through barriers. Just because one may not enjoy one of rock's variations does not mean it is not rock music.

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.

    [/QUOTE]

    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I have a grudge against the Rolling Stone magazine guys, in case you couldn't tell.  Leaving Deep Purple and ELP out of their album guides is unconscionable.  Snobs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Was there ever a time when Rollling Stone Magazine was "cool"?  Not in my lifetime, IMO (born 1961)....never bought it, might have flipped through it if it was at a friend's place. It's just the People Magazine of popular music.  FFS...the Pope was on the cover recently, right?!  A major religious leader on the cover of a purportedly music magazine!!

    What about Creem?  Punk?  MMR?  Shingdig?  And esp. Ugly Things?

    Reading Rolling Stone for your rock'n'roll is even worse than reading Playboy for your sex.

     

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.

    [/QUOTE]

    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

    [/QUOTE]

    It annoys me when anyone has things like pulitzer prize winner, emmy winner, academy award winner, hall of famer tacked onto their name. It is purely for marketing purposes and certainly says nothing about their latest work. These award titles don't make a poor performer into a good one nor does it inform an intelligent audience as to who is worthy of their attention (and dollars).

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.



    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

    [/QUOTE]

    It annoys me when anyone has things like pulitzer prize winner, emmy winner, academy award winner, hall of famer tacked onto their name. It is purely for marketing purposes and certainly says nothing about their latest work. These award titles don't make a poor performer into a good one nor does it inform an intelligent audience as to who is worthy of their attention (and dollars).

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  If a writer, stage actor, film actor, or other popular-vote-award-winner is pleased and proud by being gifted such a (valueless, IMO) popularity prize (see "Likely To Succeed, Most"), good for them.  If it makes them happy because they can earn more money/fame, fine, I couldn't care less.....except that the tsunami of money toward that/those most likely to make even more money is choking off the never-great-chances of the current and next generations of, say, maverick/indie/weird filmmakers like Peckinpah/Jarmusch/Waters.  

    I reckon most people here, despite our (marginally, IMO) different musical tastes, despise the growing "celebrity" culture i.e. 1) fame, 2) money, 3) return to 1).

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.



    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

    [/QUOTE]

    You think it's incisive, b/c you agree with it.   I don't.  :P  (no offense, DD, and I know you are always up for a challenge.)

    I do not reside in the same world as some of you (most of you, actually), b/c of what I do for a living, and my experiences with material such as this is not just as a consumer or fan. 

    Who said that halls of fame were for FANS -- and *ONLY* fans?   I am not, I repeat, not into the Rock Hall induction process / thingee, but if I may mention this -- no one lives forever, no one is immortal, and I am not sure how or where you think the future generations are going to know, learn or "hear" about all of the music (let's keep the focus on music, but I could stray easily to others of the arts, etc.) that we take for granted now??  What if people (not you) want to make a pilgrimage to such a place?
    Who are you to dismiss them or their desire for this experience?   What if they use the place to benchmark?   Not to take what they see as the letter of the law, but to get a "read"?

    It's only going to get more complicated as the years flow by.  You think it's a big deal to discuss "rock" music from 60 years ago?   Well, how about 160 years, or 260 years ... just as the 'classical' artists, many of whom have been dead for hundreds of years.   How do people learn about them?   No, a "hall of fame" is not the only way, but what is wrong with preserving what was important in a bygone era?

    NOTE: I attended a splendid concert of early / sacred music last weekend, and one of the composers has been dead since 1623 --amazes me he could write such beautiful music ---  and guess what, the program notes were incredibly interesting to ME (maybe not you), and the person who does all the research for the concerts is an expert in historically informed performance (otherwise known as 'HIP' ... ).   

    Why is everyone here so anti-knowledge sharing?   It has nothing to do with how *you* feel for yourself -- it's not about you.  

    I know, I know, the focus should be on rock music, but honestly, some of you have tunnel vision and take an awful lot for granted.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:


    I hate the RnR hall of fame almost as much as I hate the Grammy awards. They need Rap artists because they are running out of quality rock artists to nominate. They have already watered it down so much as it is who cares.

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    Well, I think part of the problem is that the function of the RRHOF is sort of a dual one.  As a museum and showplace I'm sure it's a great spot, and yes, it's a good way to preserve material for posterity.

    I think the negative reactions arise from the whole 'induction' system which, let's face it, is a big part of the HOF's public persona.  The concept of 'induction' and its corresponding concept of 'exclusion' are what raise people's emotions.  It's clear that a lot of people, including musicians themselves, see things that bother them, about the process, not about the building.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    I promise these are my final comments on the issue:

    • http://www.beatlesbible.com/1969/11/25/john-lennon-returns-his-mbe-to-the-queen/
    • http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Cassius_Clay_throw_his_gold_medal_in_the_river?#slide=1
    • http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100263688/tony-benn-the-lefts-conscience-has-died-just-as-labour-has-rediscovered-his-beliefs/

     

     

     

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I have a grudge against the Rolling Stone magazine guys, in case you couldn't tell.  Leaving Deep Purple and ELP out of their album guides is unconscionable.  Snobs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Was there ever a time when Rollling Stone Magazine was "cool"?  Not in my lifetime, IMO (born 1961)....never bought it, might have flipped through it if it was at a friend's place. It's just the People Magazine of popular music.  FFS...the Pope was on the cover recently, right?!  A major religious leader on the cover of a purportedly music magazine!!

    What about Creem?  Punk?  MMR?  Shingdig?  And esp. Ugly Things?

    Reading Rolling Stone for your rock'n'roll is even worse than reading Playboy for your sex.

    [/QUOTE]

    Roilling Stone magazine is not the same thing now as it originally was, that's for sure.  And it may never have been as cool as it thought it was.  However, it did boast some very good rock criticism in the day - a lot of the reviews were worth reading.  (That was often the only part I read in depth.)  I have a couple of the Album Guide books.  The one that came out in 1994 was first-rate, excellent reviews throughout.  The one that came out after that was noticeably weaker, I thought.

    As for Creem, I loved it.  Lester Bangs was the man.  I also liked Circus magazine, which was a lot like Creem except a little more commercial and not as snarky. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

     

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

    [/QUOTE]

    You think it's incisive, b/c you agree with it.   I don't.  :P  (no offense, DD, and I know you are always up for a challenge.)

    I do not reside in the same world as some of you (most of you, actually), b/c of what I do for a living, and my experiences with material such as this is not just as a consumer or fan. 

    Who said that halls of fame were for FANS -- and *ONLY* fans?   I am not, I repeat, not into the Rock Hall induction process / thingee, but if I may mention this -- no one lives forever, no one is immortal, and I am not sure how or where you think the future generations are going to know, learn or "hear" about all of the music (let's keep the focus on music, but I could stray easily to others of the arts, etc.) that we take for granted now??  What if people (not you) want to make a pilgrimage to such a place?
    Who are you to dismiss them or their desire for this experience?   What if they use the place to benchmark?   Not to take what they see as the letter of the law, but to get a "read"?

    It's only going to get more complicated as the years flow by.  You think it's a big deal to discuss "rock" music from 60 years ago?   Well, how about 160 years, or 260 years ... just as the 'classical' artists, many of whom have been dead for hundreds of years.   How do people learn about them?   No, a "hall of fame" is not the only way, but what is wrong with preserving what was important in a bygone era?

    NOTE: I attended a splendid concert of early / sacred music last weekend, and one of the composers has been dead since 1623 --amazes me he could write such beautiful music ---  and guess what, the program notes were incredibly interesting to ME (maybe not you), and the person who does all the research for the concerts is an expert in historically informed performance (otherwise known as 'HIP' ... ).   

    Why is everyone here so anti-knowledge sharing?   It has nothing to do with how *you* feel for yourself -- it's not about you.  

    I know, I know, the focus should be on rock music, but honestly, some of you have tunnel vision and take an awful lot for granted.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I am in complete agreement with you.

    I know I can sound dismissive of museums, but I really am not. I do understand your point and sympathize with it. I have a strong interest in the history of everything, which I pursue mainly by reading books and articles. Museums preserve history as well and serve an important role in doing so. They preserve the artifacts relating to history, bringing another dimension to our understanding. History is absolutely worth preserving in every form and method we have at our disposal.

    My main beef is about bestowing more importance on an individual because of their awards or induction into this or that hall of fame. Many important people in history are those who are the least memorialized. Maybe there is more of a need to recognize the unsung greats of history. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

     

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

    [/QUOTE]

    You think it's incisive, b/c you agree with it.   I don't.  :P  (no offense, DD, and I know you are always up for a challenge.)

    I do not reside in the same world as some of you (most of you, actually), b/c of what I do for a living, and my experiences with material such as this is not just as a consumer or fan. 

    Who said that halls of fame were for FANS -- and *ONLY* fans?   I am not, I repeat, not into the Rock Hall induction process / thingee, but if I may mention this -- no one lives forever, no one is immortal, and I am not sure how or where you think the future generations are going to know, learn or "hear" about all of the music (let's keep the focus on music, but I could stray easily to others of the arts, etc.) that we take for granted now??  What if people (not you) want to make a pilgrimage to such a place?
    Who are you to dismiss them or their desire for this experience?   What if they use the place to benchmark?   Not to take what they see as the letter of the law, but to get a "read"?

    It's only going to get more complicated as the years flow by.  You think it's a big deal to discuss "rock" music from 60 years ago?   Well, how about 160 years, or 260 years ... just as the 'classical' artists, many of whom have been dead for hundreds of years.   How do people learn about them?   No, a "hall of fame" is not the only way, but what is wrong with preserving what was important in a bygone era?

    NOTE: I attended a splendid concert of early / sacred music last weekend, and one of the composers has been dead since 1623 --amazes me he could write such beautiful music ---  and guess what, the program notes were incredibly interesting to ME (maybe not you), and the person who does all the research for the concerts is an expert in historically informed performance (otherwise known as 'HIP' ... ).   

    Why is everyone here so anti-knowledge sharing?   It has nothing to do with how *you* feel for yourself -- it's not about you.  

    I know, I know, the focus should be on rock music, but honestly, some of you have tunnel vision and take an awful lot for granted.  

    [/QUOTE]

    "You think it's incisive, b/c you agree with it."  

    incisive ɪnˈsʌɪsɪv/ adjective  
    1. 1. (of a person or mental process) intelligently analytical and clear-thinking. "she was an incisive critic" synonyms: penetratingacutesharpsharp-wittedrazor-sharpkeen, rapier-like,astuteshrewdtrenchantpiercingperceptiveinsightfulpercipient,perspicaciousdiscerninganalyticalintelligentcannycleversmart,quickMore              
      •    
    2. 2. (of an action) quick and direct. "the most incisive move of a tight match"

    I disagree, Yoga. Firstly, "incisive" is not a value judgement.  Texanly, perhaps I overstated the case re DD's comment "why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway?" by referring to it as "incisive" and "brilliant".  But I don't think I did, at least not by much.  IMO, that is the crux of the issue....if I thought I was able to write great songs, books, etc. why would I care what others thought?  And if DD thought I was the greatest novelist/singer he'd ever read why would he care what anybody else thought?

     

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Establishing a Hall of Fame for anything is like trying to come up with the perfect list of people to invite to a wedding. Some don't care to be invited and others will be insulted if they aren't. There isn't a Hall of Fame on the planet that will satisfy everyone. Besides, why do the famous need a Hall of Fame anyway? It's redundant.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A brilliant, incisive question....the "famous" need/want it, IMO, obviously, to get more adulation, attention and sales/royalty payments.

     

    Why would a fan need such a thing?

    [/QUOTE]

    You think it's incisive, b/c you agree with it.   I don't.  :P  (no offense, DD, and I know you are always up for a challenge.)

    I do not reside in the same world as some of you (I disagree, I think we're all in a similar musical world) (most of you, actually), b/c of what I do for a living, and my experiences with material such as this is not just as a consumer or fan. 

    Who said that halls of fame were for FANS -- and *ONLY* fans?   I am not, I repeat, not into the Rock Hall induction process / thingee, but if I may mention this -- no one lives forever, no one is immortal, and I am not sure how or where you think the future generations are going to know, learn or "hear" about all of the music (let's keep the focus on music, but I could stray easily to others of the arts, etc.) that we take for granted now??  What if people (not you) want to make a pilgrimage to such a place?
    Who are you to dismiss them or their desire for this experience?   What if they use the place to benchmark?   Not to take what they see as the letter of the law, but to get a "read"? (I feel confident that, while I have made a few strong statements here about musicians/bands I don't like/detest, I don't think I've criticised others' personal taste.  Correct me if I'm wrong)

    It's only going to get more complicated as the years flow by.  You think it's a big deal to discuss "rock" music from 60 years ago?   Well, how about 160 years, or 260 years ... just as the 'classical' artists, many of whom have been dead for hundreds of years.   How do people learn about them?   No, a "hall of fame" is not the only way, but what is wrong with preserving what was important in a bygone era?  I have no interest in when something was created or by whom, only if I like it.

    NOTE: I attended a splendid concert of early / sacred music last weekend, and one of the composers has been dead since 1623 --amazes me he could write such beautiful music ---  and guess what, the program notes were incredibly interesting to ME (maybe not you), and the person who does all the research for the concerts is an expert in historically informed performance (otherwise known as 'HIP' ... ).   

    Why is everyone here so anti-knowledge sharing? (I don't think I am, nor you.)  It has nothing to do with how *you* feel for yourself -- it's not about you. 

    I know, I know, the focus should be on rock music, but honestly, some of you have tunnel vision and take an awful lot for granted.  (Yoga, please don't despair.....this forum, IMO, is as imperfect as are we all....but you are are the glue. ) X

    [/QUOTE]


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can't post further right now as there is this little matter called work that I must get back to, I would love to continue, I'm just out of time for today.

    'CLEAR CUT AND OBVIOUS' is possibly not always as clear cut and obvious as I believe it is... I agree.

    I am debating purely from a point of view that eludes most music fans. Sorry, but I cannot look at it any other way. 

    I believe that Deep Purple is a great band...and millions agree. I believe they are more influential than KISS and Guns'N'Roses.....but all are Rock bands. This is true.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are debating from your point of view and I am debating from mine. What makes yours more accurate than mine or vice versa? What qualifies as rock music in your view is only your view. It is not an objective fact. The rock music from the 50's is not the same as what followed it. It changed and evolved and branched out in many different ways. There is no one type of music called rock music. Buddy Holly's music is not equal to Metallica's. Both fall under the rock 'n' roll umbrella. Same with Little Richard and Jimi Hendrix. And Elvis Presley and Marilyn Manson; Rick Nelson and the Ramones; Jerry Lee Lewis and Bob Dylan. Get the picture? How do you know where to draw the line? Is everything The Beatles recorded rock 'n' roll by your  definition? Their recordings run the gamut from basic 50's style rock to complex studio created rock. That's the  beauty of rock music. It defies a strict and narrow definition. It branches out into seemingly countless variations. It knocks down walls and breaks through barriers. Just because one may not enjoy one of rock's variations does not mean it is not rock music.

    [/QUOTE]

    Every artist you name in your above post is acceptable under the term 'Rock'N'Roll'...I will list them again (in order) for those who do not wish to reread your reply.

    Buddy Holly

    Metallica

    Little Richard

    Jimi Hendrrix

    Elvis Presley 

    Marilyn Manson

    Rick Nelson

    The Ramones

    Jerry Lee Lewis

    Bob Dylan

    The Beatles

    Let me start by saying that I don't say I am completely disagreeing with your points of view. I thought by saying that I cannot view this point as an "average listener" , which is what I meant. None of us here are "average" ...if there is such a thing.

    This museum is attempting ro reach the masses. They do not stay true to the theme which is Rock 'N'Roll music.....instead they go beyond to music that is "touched by" or "influenced by" Rock. Indeed the term "Rock Music" has been over-used, ,polluted and since the 80's ( the decade that ruined us...but that's another subject , for another time and maybe another place) it has changed to define anything that is under the umbrella of "popular music."

    Of course, the Beatles "progressed" beyond Rock'N'Roll to become the first PROG ROCK band...not everything they did after Sgt. Pepper was Rock, or Prog. they did some Folky stuff (Rocky Raccoon), some Classical stuff ( Good Night), some Blues (Don't Bring Me Down, Yer Blues), some jazzy stuff ( Get You Into My Life). This is whay they were who they were....simply the best. But, they did start out as a Rock band and will always be considered under that heading first and last and always.

    There are many bands that I like who are in the RRHOF...one of them is ABBA.....they were a fantastic POP band and they recorded , perhaps, the only DISCO song that I really like....'Dancing Queen.' Overplayed-yes. Rock 'N'Roll- sort of. Good music - no doubt in my mind. Do they belong in a ROCK 'N'ROLL Hall Of Fame?...not from where I'm sitting, Jack.

    This is what gets me on my high horse....and I am not saying right or wrong, just what I believe to be a total shame:

    IN RRHOF:

    Neil Diamond

    ABBA

    Madonna

    Michael Jackson

    George Clinton

    Run DMC

    Not in RRHOF:

    Foriegner 

    Journey

    Iron Maiden

    How many top selling albums did Foriegner have in the 70s and 80s?...how many Journey songs do you hear daily on classic Rock stations?.....how many Heavy Metal fans were growing up when the mighty Iron Maiden defied the experts of the 80s who said the genre was "dead?"

    Don't misunderstand me.

    I love Neil Diamond's music....'Brooklyn Roads' is a really nice song...a favorite....and I have a couple of his GH Cds.

    But this guy is not a ROCK ARTIST....neither is ABBA, and the others are all brilliant at what they do. It just isn't what we call ROCK.....Foriegner is ROCK. Rush adn Deep Purple whoe were ignored for so long are ROCK, why is Madonna who started later, in first?

    Put all the ROCK bands that should be honored in....then progress to offshoots and other genres.....that would be a better process.

    Yes, Nick Lowe should be in there...what in hell are they thinking? Of course everything he's done except 'Cruel To Be Kind' has been forgotten already. Dave Edmunds should be honored also....the two were the centerpieces of the great Rockpile, the best Rock'N'Roll band most of your freinds have never heard about.

    Lyrics of the day:

    From the song 'Oh, Well' by the great Peter Green of the original Fleetwood Mac:

    "don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to"

    From Graham Parker:

    "hey Lord, don't ask me questions....there ain't no answer in me."

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Every artist you name in your above post is acceptable under the term 'Rock'N'Roll'...I will list them again (in order) for those who do not wish to reread your reply.

    Buddy Holly

    Metallica

    Little Richard

    Jimi Hendrrix

    Elvis Presley 

    Marilyn Manson

    Rick Nelson

    The Ramones

    Jerry Lee Lewis

    Bob Dylan

    The Beatles

    Let me start by saying that I don't say I am completely disagreeing with your points of view. I thought by saying that I cannot view this point as an "average listener" , which is what I meant. None of us here are "average" ...if there is such a thing.

    This museum is attempting ro reach the masses. They do not stay true to the theme which is Rock 'N'Roll music.....instead they go beyond to music that is "touched by" or "influenced by" Rock. Indeed the term "Rock Music" has been over-used, ,polluted and since the 80's ( the decade that ruined us...but that's another subject , for another time and maybe another place) it has changed to define anything that is under the umbrella of "popular music."

    Of course, the Beatles "progressed" beyond Rock'N'Roll to become the first PROG ROCK band...not everything they did after Sgt. Pepper was Rock, or Prog. they did some Folky stuff (Rocky Raccoon), some Classical stuff ( Good Night), some Blues (Don't Bring Me Down, Yer Blues), some jazzy stuff ( Get You Into My Life). This is whay they were who they were....simply the best. But, they did start out as a Rock band and will always be considered under that heading first and last and always.

    There are many bands that I like who are in the RRHOF...one of them is ABBA.....they were a fantastic POP band and they recorded , perhaps, the only DISCO song that I really like....'Dancing Queen.' Overplayed-yes. Rock 'N'Roll- sort of. Good music - no doubt in my mind. Do they belong in a ROCK 'N'ROLL Hall Of Fame?...not from where I'm sitting, Jack.

    This is what gets me on my high horse....and I am not saying right or wrong, just what I believe to be a total shame:

    IN RRHOF:

    Neil Diamond

    ABBA

    Madonna

    Michael Jackson

    George Clinton

    Run DMC

    Not in RRHOF:

    Foriegner 

    Journey

    Iron Maiden

    How many top selling albums did Foriegner have in the 70s and 80s?...how many Journey songs do you hear daily on classic Rock stations?.....how many Heavy Metal fans were growing up when the mighty Iron Maiden defied the experts of the 80s who said the genre was "dead?"

    Don't misunderstand me.

    I love Neil Diamond's music....'Brooklyn Roads' is a really nice song...a favorite....and I have a couple of his GH Cds.

    But this guy is not a ROCK ARTIST....neither is ABBA, and the others are all brilliant at what they do. It just isn't what we call ROCK.....Foriegner is ROCK. Rush adn Deep Purple whoe were ignored for so long are ROCK, why is Madonna who started later, in first?

    Put all the ROCK bands that should be honored in....then progress to offshoots and other genres.....that would be a better process.

    Yes, Nick Lowe should be in there...what in hell are they thinking? Of course everything he's done except 'Cruel To Be Kind' has been forgotten already. Dave Edmunds should be honored also....the two were the centerpieces of the great Rockpile, the best Rock'N'Roll band most of your freinds have never heard about.

    Lyrics of the day:

    From the song 'Oh, Well' by the great Peter Green of the original Fleetwood Mac:

    "don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to"

    From Graham Parker:

    "hey Lord, don't ask me questions....there ain't no answer in me."

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think I understand where you are coming from, but without some kind of criteria as to describe what rock 'n' roll music is, it is difficult to come to a reasonable definiton. A band such as Funkadelic, who you don't like, is just as much of a rock performer as were James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, and Sly and the Family Stone, who all had an influence on them. Are progressive bands such as Yes, Genesis, King Crimson rock 'n' roll bands? Are the dissonant songs of the Velvet Underground rock 'n' roll? Neil Diamond may or may not be pure rock 'n' roll, but what about songs like "Kentucky Woman", "Cherry Cherry", "Solitary Man", and "I'm a Believer"? Roy Orbison started off with a rockabilly sound but mutated into something entirely different. Is he a rock 'n' roll artist?

    It's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel to use heavy metal bands as examples of "real" rock. Well of course they are because "they rock". But not all rock 'n' roll music fits into that oversimplified cliche. Just because music is loud or "heavy" does it mean it is more real rock 'n' roll than softer, less "heavy" music is not. A song like Black Sabbath's "Iron Man" is so far from the original rock 'n' roll sound of the 50's as to be almost and entirely different kind of music. In fact, the classical influence on heavy metal and prog rock could call into question how really bona fide rock 'n' roll they are.

    I think there is plenty of room under the rock 'n' roll umbrella for music that is seemingly as diffferent as night and day. That, to me, is the beauty of rock'n' roll music and why it is so resilient. Rock music can't be "watered down" by being inclusive of all it's sub-genres. Even Pat Boone contributed to the success of rock 'n' roll music whether we like it or not.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    So, if you are going to put the "softer" more radio accessible stuff in and give it priority ( which to some degree is what they do), then why is the harder Rock the aggressive and less radio friendly stuff discriminated against?

    As I said, I have no real argument with your point of view, it is not wrong. I have no problem with "soft rock" and I like alot of it. Al Stewart, Joni Mitchell , Suzanne Vega, Depeche Mode ,Roy Orbison these are favorites of mine along with Blue Oyster Cult, Ramones, Cream , Iron Maiden and other more 'hard rockin' type music. I don't deny anyone their place in music history or in their fame.

    I also don't so much mind that the term Rock or Rock'N' Roll is being applied to bands that clearly are not , such as Funkadelic or ABBA. Really it does not come down to "like or dislike" but whether they have been pigeonholed into Rock by people who don't understand that just being popular and using guitars and drums and having been recorded after 1955 , this is not a basis for labeling a group "Rock."

    I think the "large umbrella" you speak of is indeed quite large....I feel this is a major part of our difference of opinion. I still would prefer to see bands that are closer to what is known as "Rock" to people who know what Rock is. If Rap is damn great, why don't they get their own bloody museum...is that a wrong way of thinking?  There are enough Michael Jackson and Madonna wannabees for those twits to have their own museum also.....is this wrong to say this? Why cram every type of popular music that emerged after Rock and say that it is a "subgenre" when clearly it is not? 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, if you are going to put the "softer" mor radio accessible stuff in and give it prioruty ( which to some degree is what they do), then why is the harder Rock the aggressive and less radio friendly stuff discriminated against?

    As I said, I have no real argument with your point of view, it is not wrong. I have no problem with "soft rock" and I like alot of it. Al Stewart, Joni Mitchell , Suzanne Vega, Depeche Mode ,Roy Orbison these are favorites of mine along with Blue Oyster Cult, Ramones, Cream , Iron Maiden and other more 'hard rockin' type music. I don't deny anyone their place in music history or in their fame.

    I also don't so much mind that the term Rock or Rock'N' Roll is being applied to bands that clearly are not , such as Funkadelic or ABBA. Really it does not come down to "like or dislike" but whether they have been pigeonholed into Rock by people who don't understand that just being popular and using guitars and drums and having been recorded after 1955 , this is not a basis for labeling a group "Rock."

    I think the "large umbrella" you speak of is indeed quite large....I feel this is a major part of our difference of opinion. I still would prefer to see bands that are closer to what is known as "Rock" to people who know what Rock is. If Rap is damn great, why don't they get their own bloody museum...is that a wrong way of thinking?  There are enough Michael Jackson and Madonna wannabees for those twits to have their own museum also.....is this wrong to say this? Why cram every type of popular music that emerged after Rock and say that it is a "subgenre" when clearly it is not? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Do me a favor. Listen to these two songs and tell me why either one is or isn't rock.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnfInIJxgfQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVHrvx-Ua68

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    We seem to be miles apart here.

    I 'll say that perhaps I am wrong with Funkedelic, not being familiar with their catalog in general.

    However, John Lennon wrote a terrific Blues song ,'Yer Blues'...and yet you wouldn't ever refer to him as a Blues artist or put him in a Blues hall of fame.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Zilla, I take great offence to your post, and here's why:

    Golf is a sport, buddy! Laughing

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, so is darts and shuffle board!

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We seem to be miles apart here.

    I 'll say that perhaps I am wrong with Funkedelic, not being familiar with their catalog in general.

    However, John Lennon wrote a terrific Blues song ,'Yer Blues'...and yet you wouldn't ever refer to him as a Blues artist or put him in a Blues hall of fame.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am trying to bridge the miles that separate us. Funkadelic has enough songs in their catalog that qualify as rock under any definition of the word. Here is another rockin' song of theirs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfVSqQ7FcDY

    You quoted Graham Parker's "Don't Ask Me Qustions". Is that a rock 'n' roll song? Seems to me it has a reggae beat.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVlrhWaZhA

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    I talk (sheet) about this all the time....to me, if a band is roughly git/bass/drums they are rock'n'roll.

    Yeah yeah yeah, at the margins one might say the Ventures are Surf, Johnny Guitar Watson is Funk and the Pistols are Punk.  And there are people I know that have tried to explain to me the difference between metal, black metal, death metal, speed metal.....

    I think it's mostly parochial BS....and I'm subject to it too, I'm not throwing stones.  But if my (very cool in many ways) 85-year old cousin heard the Ventures, Johnny Guitar, the Pistols, the Beatles, etc. I'm sure she'd put them all in the same category....rock'n'roll...and I think she'd be right.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I talk (sheet) about this all the time....to me, if a band is roughly git/bass/drums they are rock'n'roll.

    Yeah yeah yeah, at the margins one might say the Ventures are Surf, Johnny Guitar Watson is Funk and the Pistols are Punk.  And there are people I know that have tried to explain to me the difference between metal, black metal, death metal, speed metal.....

    I think it's mostly parochial BS....and I'm subject to it too, I'm not throwing stones.  But if my (very cool in many ways) 85-year old cousin heard the Ventures, Johnny Guitar, the Pistols, the Beatles, etc. I'm sure she'd put them all in the same category....rock'n'roll...and I think she'd be right.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    But....where did we end up on this path?....possibly my fault, I'm sorry.

    The main point deals with Rap music.

    While I will admit it is distant offshoot of some type of Blues-Folk- Soul hybrid and indeed this is where Rock originates.....Rap is not Rock and never will be.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I talk (sheet) about this all the time....to me, if a band is roughly git/bass/drums they are rock'n'roll.

    Yeah yeah yeah, at the margins one might say the Ventures are Surf, Johnny Guitar Watson is Funk and the Pistols are Punk.  And there are people I know that have tried to explain to me the difference between metal, black metal, death metal, speed metal.....

    I think it's mostly parochial BS....and I'm subject to it too, I'm not throwing stones.  But if my (very cool in many ways) 85-year old cousin heard the Ventures, Johnny Guitar, the Pistols, the Beatles, etc. I'm sure she'd put them all in the same category....rock'n'roll...and I think she'd be right.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    But....where did we end up on this path?....possibly my fault, I'm sorry.

    The main point deals with Rap music.

    While I will admit it is distant offshoot of some type of Blues-Folk- Soul hybrid and indeed this is where Rock originates.....Rap is not Rock and never will be.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rap is a form of rock music and always will be.

    We can each make statements that sound definitive but it does not make it so. Whether or not we like a form of rock music has no bearing on whether or not it is rock music.

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    I have to side with Zilla on this one.  Rap falls outside of my definition of rock n roll or rock.  I think it is different enough to merit its own category.

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

    Re: Gene Simmons:

    devildavid, I have a question for you - approaching this issue from the other direction, so to speak.

    What types of music do you personally feel fall completely outside of the domain of rock n roll? 

     

Share