Devo had a hit with Whip It too lol.darbypitcher22 wrote: You don't sell 70 million albums if you don't have one or two hits somewhere along the line.....
I didn't say that is the exclusive criteria. Originally I pointed out that Abba is in a very exclusive group as far as record sales goes. With the company they're keeping in that regard it isn't difficult to see why they are in.ccrunner609 wrote:enigmaax wrote:From what I've seen, the most common estimate for Kiss' record sales is about 70 million records. That is in a class with New Kids on the Block, Meat Loaf, and Kenny G.
So if this is a criteria, whats the Ramones doing in the HOF? They sold less then 10 million. THeir music was horrible, my kids sound better on the Wii.
Why not, they are a great band.ccrunner609 wrote: Cheap trick should never get into the Hall of fame.
Agree on all points.KnightXC1 wrote: The whole probelm with that place now is that they need to have "cool" acts going in to spark interest. It is no longer the Rock and Roll hall of fame but the mucis hall of fame. They should just change the name because so many artists that go in now were not rock and roll groups. Place sucks anyways.
That's when it comes down to influences. Cooke and Brown were definitely more soul and pop singers....which are two of the three major genres that rock and roll was founded upon (the other being blues). Without soul, pop, and blues....there is no rock and roll.Upper90 wrote: I'm not sure if it's ever been the "Rock & Roll" hall of fame. Even the first class inducted Sam Cooke, James Brown, and Fats Domino, and only Fats even teetered on the edge of Rock and Roll. Sam Cooke was about as straight of a soul singer as it gets.
I wouldn't care if they changed the name, or didn't...It was based on the foundation that all music stems from R&R, and that in and of itself is debatable.
Yeah I believe you're right. 25 years from the first album sounds right. People on here talking about how you have to be together 20+ years confused me, but I should have known better.pmoney25 wrote: I'm pretty sure the requirement is 25 years when your first record was released.
To me great means
1. Talent
2.Contribution to music
3. Influence on future bands
4. Originality
5. Long lasting success
While popular doesn't equal great, it has to be considered in certain cases.
The great things about opinions is...everybody has one, and everybody believes they are right!....Having said that...I have the EXACT polar- opposite opinion of Genesis...the Peter Gabriel years were interesting and ground-breaking ("Lamb Lies Down...etc.) much like Gabriel's solo work...and Phil Collins = the most derivitive and unoriginal pablum-spouting fat-headed "rockstar" to claim title to that dubious post.pmoney25 wrote: Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where, uh, Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as, uh, anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your ass. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and, uh, Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
The even more interesting thing...is that I fully agree with this assessment...and completely use these parameters as a reason to exclude Phil Collins... as one of the most talentless, derivitive, uninfluential, unoriginal, and transient fat rock stars in history. Ironic!pmoney25 wrote: I'm pretty sure the requirement is 25 years when your first record was released.
To me great means
1. Talent
2.Contribution to music
3. Influence on future bands
4. Originality
5. Long lasting success
While popular doesn't equal great, it has to be considered in certain cases.
Ok I stopped reading at this point. I think you need to take a rock and roll history course. Rock and roll came from country western pop and r&b. all of the genres now sprang from rock and roll. So, yeah.SQ_Crazies wrote:Upper90 wrote: Why would LL not be considered for the HOF?
Because it's the ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME.
