FutureRockHall.com

Your 2008 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees:

Leonard Cohen
The Dave Clark Five
Madonna
John Mellencamp
The Ventures

more to come...

Posted by Future Rock Hall on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 07:50am

This was somewhat a surprise. I expected Madonna and Mellencamp (even before Mellencamp's own preemptive announcement). The Dave Clark 5 makes sense to make up for last year's scandal, although I don't agree with their induction. Leonard Cohen is a surprise, and I am glad to see him in there. I'm also glad to see The Ventures get it. As a guitar player myself, I know how influential they are on other players.

The Beasties will eventually get in, I wouldn't worry about that. I was glad Donna Summer and Chic didn't make it, although I would have liked to see Afrika Bambaata.

Posted by Dezmond on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 07:54am

The Ventures! It's about time! They are more than just great musicians, they are a brother- hood. They have also done so much for American- Japanese relations and won an important award for that 2 years ago. The Ventures have been such a great influence on guitarists for 50 years now, are still recording, writing and touring. Thanks to all the session people who helped them over the years, including David Gates, Leon Russell, Larry Taylor, Glen Campbell and many others! The Ventures should have been inducted at the HOF's initial induction years ago, but am very happy to see them as 2008 inductees!

MICHAEL KUHN
Ventures USA Fan Club President Emeritus

Posted by MICUS on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:10am

Well, I called the Beasties' snub, but I'm very surprised that Donna Summer didn't make it, since she has much more name recognition than the Ventures.

I also want to point out that this is the Class of 2008 and they are inducting not one but two bands from the early 1960's. You might even count Cohen as a 1960's artist as well. So much for relevance.

Posted by A-Killa on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:11am

I also, also want to point out that on the Rock Hall's official web site, there is nothing whatsoever about the inductees being announced today. Shows you where their priorities are.

Posted by A-Killa on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:36am

How old are these voters? I would love to know how many of them have actually listened to a Beastie Boys record.

Posted by c.w. on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:37am

I've got to admit, I'm surprised that the Beastie Boys didn't get in, but I'm not really disappointed.

The voters snubbing the 2 rappers and 2 disco artists will hopefully send a strong message to those dinosaurs in the nomination committee.

Posted by Freduardo on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:40am

No Beastie Boys... that's too bad. Their influence on the current music landscape seems incalculable.

Posted by Sarah on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:43am

Congratulations to MADONNA!

She really deserves this....no one works harder or has produced consistent good work...VIVA LA DIVA.

Posted by K on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:43am

Just a note for Sarah, you have to remember that this is a ROCK AND ROLL Hall of Fame, and while the Beastie Boys are certainly deserving of being enshrined somewhere, it shouldn't be here. Although it is a tricky question, because many rap artists have had a lot of influence on todays musical stuff.

However, before they start moving to other genres, the Hall needs to finish honouring the bona fide rock genres.

Posted by A moron (AKA Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Nominating Committee member) on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:47am

"..this is the Class of 2008 and they are inducting not one but two bands from the early 1960's. You might even count Cohen as a 1960's artist as well. So much for relevance." A-Killa

Relevance?
Is there some statute of limitation on historical presence that I am unaware of? Your logic says that artists who are newly eligible scream for induction NOW over anyone older - or do you have some arbitarry date (1970?..1980?) before which artists "expire"?
If you have a grievance of an individual artist getting in over another, that's one thing, but to cry foul simply because of the decade they are from seems to lack relevance to me.

I think that the surprising complete exclusions of Donna Summer, Chic, The Beasties and Bambaata demonstrates something I agree with - the Hall is fast forwarding to disco and rap too soon; there are way too many artists still left in previous decades, long time eligibles, to be glibly and arbitrarily focusing on rap and disco.

Do The Ventures, DC5 and Cohen deserve to be the ones from the far past chosen? I don't know and that's not my point.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:48am

I can't wait to see Leonard Cohen jamming with The Ventures and the Dave Clark Five at the end of the ceremony! Not to be missed!

Posted by c.w. on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 08:55am

So happy that Chic and Donna Summer are not in.
I think it is a good induction class knowing who were nominated.
The Beastie Boys will probably be inducted in the next few years and Bambaataa would deserve it but I think it is quite normal for them not to be inducted on their first year.

Posted by roméo on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 11:09am

Well...the Beasties was a surprise, but it does make sense. This isn't the 25th anniversary of Licensed to Ill...it's the 25th anniversary of their hardcore punk tapes. They'll make it in a couple of years. Metallica will be a lock next year as it is their 25th anniversary of Kill 'Em All. John Mellencamp was probably necessary...and Leonard Cohen was a surprise.

Anyways though, the band better begin inducting more than 5 each day cause the backlogged list is getting too big. They need to start accepting progressive rock bands and some more metal bands quickly before they get tagged with more criticism.

Posted by maplejet on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 12:18pm

"Relevance?
Is there some statute of limitation on historical presence that I am unaware of? Your logic says that artists who are newly eligible scream for induction NOW over anyone older - or do you have some arbitarry date (1970?..1980?) before which artists "expire"?"-shawn

Say what? You took a big leap away from what he said and presumably meant, which was simply that we're not recognizing the accomplishments of any of the "younger" artists (many of whom are already in their forties and fifties), and that we're just not keeping up to date. He didn't say anything about giving "preference" to brand-new eligibles, nor anyhing about music "expiring." Don't just make crap up.

Anyway, here's my question: If you already have to be between 30 and 40 years old to get in, what's the point of making the minimum 25? Why sit around just being "eligible" for 5 to 15 years and not having anything done about it?

Posted by William on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 12:40pm

No Beastie Boys? Grandmaster Flash made it? Where are Hall & Oates? Jann Wenner is a homo.

Posted by john bull on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 14:08pm

"The induction ceremony will again air live on 'VH1 Classic' on March 10, 2008."

I think that about sums up the fuckin' insigificance of the rock hall of fame.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 16:34pm

It's aired on VH1 Classic before, and on VH! in the past (but not live). The ceremony didn't even air at all prior to a few years back.

Congrats to the most important female performer of the last 25 years- now a member of both the UK and USA Hall of Fame.

Of course, some in the media will be harping, "She's not rock"- they seriously need to get over it. Rock and roll R& is a general term, meant to encompass all genres of music to develop throughout the curse of the rock era.

Posted by JR on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 16:49pm

On the website at:
http://www.rateitall.com/t-2529-deserving-of-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame.aspx
you can vote for your favorite artists that are eligible but have been overlooked by the R&R HoF.
The # indicates where these artists were on the voting results at the time of their induction announcement.
The Ventures #6
Madonna #13
Dave Clark 5 #32
John Mellencamp #50
Leonard Cohen #204

The current top 20 vote-getters are:
1.Rush
2. Yes
3. Stevie Ray Vaughan
4. Deep Purple
5. Genesis
6. Alice Cooper
7. Jethro Tull
8. Neil Diamond
9. Chicago
10. Moody Blues
11. Pete Townshend (solo)
12. The Cars
13. Dire Straits
14. Duran Duran
15. Joe Cocker
16. Heart
17. The Hollies
18. Peter Gabriel (solo)
19. Los Lobos
20. Steve Miller

Posted by Garrett on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 18:06pm

"Say what? You took a big leap.." - William

Why would the relevance of a year's inductions hinge on the age of those inductees, i.e., the proximity of their first recording to our current year?
Why should "keeping up to date" come into the consideration equation at all? Merit is merit, right? Doesn't that trump any preoccupation with ushering in "younger" acts, when we wiegh relevance? Am I not understanding your point?

I agree that 25 years is an unneccesarily long gestation period; you know after 15 years if an artist is significant most of the time.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.13.07 @ 22:40pm

At least one of the biggest omissions (Cohen) is now the holder of a throne in rock's not-so golden palace. Of course, this comes at the expense of the unworthy Dave Clark Five and Mellencamp being given the same red carpet.

Posted by Casper on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 02:18am

I can't take the RRHofF seriously until they induct Rush.

Posted by Kat on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 04:47am

When you read that list above, it simply a joke of who has not been inducted to the hall, some of which I am not a fan at all, but could readily admit their influence and importance in rock (Yes, Jethro Tull, Rush, Deep Purple, Genesis, Moody Blues, SRV). Maybe next year!

Posted by Matzo Ball on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 05:55am

"Why would the relevance of a year's inductions hinge on the age of those inductees, i.e., the proximity of their first recording to our current year?
Why should "keeping up to date" come into the consideration equation at all? Merit is merit, right? Doesn't that trump any preoccupation with ushering in "younger" acts, when we wiegh relevance?"-shawn

Legitimate questions, although if you had asked them in the first place rather than jumping all over the guy, I wouldn't have had a problem. Anyway let me try to answer them.

Firstly, if we're not keeping up with the times, then why have the museum in the first place? Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself? The purpose of the hall in theory is to recognize those artists who made music what it is today and what it will be in the future, but if there's a thirty-some-odd-year gap between them and us, how exactly are you showing that progression? I realize they can't be on the absolute cutting edge, nor do I expect it, but it's telling that they can't keep up with their own arbitrary criteria.

Regarding merit, do you not think it's possible that some of the younger musicians might have as much or more, and that a large part of the outcry is in response to them being snubbed in favor of older musicians simply BECAUSE they're older? Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?

Lastly, I'll restate my earlier point that a lot of the "younger" acts are really not that young anymore. Kim Gordon is 54. She'll be eligible for Social Security before long. Just saying I'd hate to only be getting around to inducting the "young" guys by the time they're senior citizens.

Posted by William on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 07:09am

as long as u got DC4 off the dam ballot thats fine

Posted by martin on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 07:48am

The Ventures, Leonard Cohen, DC5, Gamble/Huff and Little Walter deserve induction into the Hall of Fame for their great contributions to Rock and Roll. The other 2 names for whom I don't want to mention are posers and corporate sellouts and shouldn't receive their honors.

Posted by James on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:11am

For 2009 I'd like to see the following

Steve Miller
Doobie Brothers
Jethro Tull
Yes
Moody Blues
Deep Purple

and as sidemen I'd like
Andy Fairweater Low (Clapton, Dave Edmunds, Roger Waters, and countless other artists)
Bernard Purdie (Steely Dan, countless blues and jazz artists)
Joe Morello( drummer on Dave Brubeck's "Take 5"
perfecting 5/4 beat)
Willie Weeks (bass on Stones' It's Only RnR, and Joe Walsh's Life's Been Good)

Now that's a RNR HOF for you.

Posted by Richard on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:21am

"You might even count Cohen as a 1960's artist as well."

Incorrect. Cohen has released at least two records every decade since the 60's; his latest was in 2004. Many of his best songs were recorded long after the 60's ("The Guests"--1979; "Hallelujah"-1984; "Everybody Knows" and "Tower of Song"--1988; "The Future"--1993; "In My Secret Life"--2001).

I am so pleased he is being recognized. He and Dylan are the true poets of RNR.

Posted by The King on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:50am

I "strangely" get the feeling that all four rejected artists will be returning next year...they'll probably throw in Run DMC as well just to ensure that Disco/Hip Hop have at least a solitary inductee.

Next year's ballot:

Afrika Bambaataa
Beastie Boys
Chic
Donna Summer
Joy Division (Thanks to the Ian Curtis biopic)
Metallica
Run DMC
Stevie Ray Vaughn
The Stooges (Returning after a brief rest period)

Voters will induct the bottom five.

Posted by Casper on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 17:05pm

I think The Stooges will return to the final ballot next year.

Posted by David on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 18:22pm

Such a shame that the Hall robbed Donna Summer, a major player in shaping American music. Her abilities are phenominal and repertoire quite exceptional and diverse. Madonna before Donna really makes a statement that the Hall becomes more of a joke every year. Donna can sing rings around Madonna and paved the way for current female "singers." Guess she joins many other overlooked non-inductees.

Posted by Tom on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 18:39pm

Tom, I agree that Donna Summer should be in the HOF, but let's not take away from what Madonna has accompished and what she's meant. We know the HOFD isn't just about the music, but also the overall impact, and few have had as much impact as Madonna with what they've done in their work.

Many of us would have loved to see a Madonna-Donna duet on I Feel Love/Future Lovers. :) (probably wouldn't have happened if DS made it in, but one can imagine. hehe)

Posted by JR on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 21:15pm

Casper, I'd agree with your bottom 3 likelies -
1)- Stooges, for the 7th try
2)- Metallica
3)- SRVaughn

but after the complete rope off of the rap and disco artists this year, I'd guess they will pick between the Beasties again and Run DMC, but not try both.
so 4)- Run DMC OR Beasties

Also would not expect to see Afrika Bambaata or Donna Summer again for a while - nomination may very well be their only honor.

Would expect them not to try to shove Chic down voters throats consecutive years, don't ya think?

Joy Division? Would be a delightful shock to see them open up their minds to that shade of the post-punk category, but you're wishin' on a star there, pally-wally.

Don't you think if the Hall dared to dab their fingers finallyinto the "alternative" side of the tracks (goofy as that label is), they'd be more inclined to embrace Sonic Youth or The Replacements? Maybe The Cure, finally?

I really hope their other 5 include at least 3 of the 70's artists still waiting around outside.

Maybe a pleasant surprise individual like Cohen this year - Nick Drake, Brain Eno, Jeff Beck? Big Star?

The Smiths have no chance at all.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 22:37pm

"Incorrect. Cohen has released.. "Tower of Song"--1988.." -king

Incorrect.
Tower of Song is a tribute album of Cohen songs released 1995, performed by various artists (Bono, Don Henely, Billy Joel, Tori Amos, Willie Nelson, Peter Gabriel, Suzanne Vega, Sting, Martin Gore..)

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 22:44pm

My bad, King.
In rereading your post I see you were listing the SONG, "Tower of Song" in 1988, and not the album.
Sorry.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 22:47pm

"..but if there's a thirty-some-odd-year gap between them and us, how exactly are you showing that progression?" - William

So you'd propose that the Hall, ideally, would make sure that each year they try to purposefully amass a thorough cross secton of eras/decades for induction, something similar to the forced segregation of genres I suggested? This would show better historical progression and thus satisfy relevance better?

"Regarding merit, do you not think it's possible that some of the younger musicians might have as much or more,.." -Willaim

Sure, of course. Some certainly do, depending on who you pull out to compare side by side.

"..and that a large part of the outcry is in response to them being snubbed in favor of older musicians simply BECAUSE they're older?" - William

Maybe. I also understand that outcry within reason. Chronological order deserves some regard, I think. By the same token, I don't want to see newer artists take up the nominated slots simply for the novelty of their fresh factor. Neither prejudice is right.

There is a constituancy that feels that there are a lot of artists from the 70's they are missing in the Hall who are being passed over year after year like discarded Halloween candy, and they don't want to hear about The Beasties or Madonna or disco era acts yet. I tend to agree.

This comes down to individual artsist vs individual, regardless of year, doesn't it?

Just out of curiosity William, who would you induct from 1979 or earlier before 1980 and up?
In order, who would be your top 20 inductees - not just t what you want, but what you think is deserved.

"Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?" -William

Not neccesarily at all, and so what anyway? Historical significance... as in what's happened up to today is the reference point for a museum; what you're getting misty about is speculation.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 23:15pm

Next Year:
Metallica
Run DMC
Stevie Ray Vaughn
The Stooges
Hopefully one of the bigger acts still out there (KISS,Chicago,Deep Purple,etc.)

Posted by Gassman on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 23:31pm

Isn't part of the problem with "not keeping up with the times" the fact that there's only 5 inductees per year- yet the same people like "The Stooges" (nominated 4 straight years 04-07) and others keep on being nominated?

Shouldn't there be a rule that if a nominated artist isn't voted in then they can't be renominated for a minimum of 5 years??

And also if the choice is between a newer artist that recently qualifies and an older artist who is still touring and releasing new music then shouldn't that older artist receive higher consideration because of that fact???

Posted by interviewer on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 00:57am

"The Smiths have no chance at all."

Indeed. What with the pressure on the hall to induct disco/rap and other predominantly black music genres, it is most likely that alot of deserving acts (typically late 70s/80s alternative) will be ingnored, and put in much later.

Although I disagree with "no chance at all". People like Interpol owe EVERYTHING to the 80s alternative, and that will work in The Smiths favour.

"Joy Division? Would be a delightful shock to see them open up their minds to that shade of the post-punk category, but you're wishin' on a star there, pally-wally."

No, I think that now, what with the release of Closer, would be the correct time to induct them - the Ian Curtis biopic would raise public interest, and Wenner MIGHT play on this, as there is NO chance of public interest in them again.

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 05:26am

"And also if the choice is between a newer artist that recently qualifies and an older artist who is still touring and releasing new music then shouldn't that older artist receive higher consideration because of that fact???"

Depends. In most cases artists reach a peak of creativity, and then never regain that, so, in most cases, I'd say 'no' to your question.

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 05:46am

"Although I disagree with "no chance at all". (for The Smiths) -liam

No chance their first eliigible year (what would make you think otherwise, what with The Cure never even having been discussed for nomination?
They certainly deserve consideration - but that's an ocean away from getting it from Wenner's World.

Maybe 10 years down the line, but even then without a complete paradigm shift........

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 07:33am

"Maybe 10 years down the line, but even then without a complete paradigm shift........"

I don't know...some Smiths fans can be PRETTY scary at times...

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 07:49am

Next Year's induction

Yes
Rush
Moody Blues
Carole King
Genesis
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Doobie Brothers
Steve Miller
Herman's Hermits
Steve Winwood
Leon Russell
Joe Cocker
Ben E. King
Chubby Checker
Donna Summer


Why the fuck can't they do 10-15 inductees a night like they used to do in the

Posted by Irving on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 08:03am

It's funny that Madonna got inducted for 2008. No offense to Madonna and her music but Donna Summer's music is more rock oriented than Madonna's. Remember, Summer is the recipient of the Grammy's FIRST "Best Rock Vocalist" Category in 1979 for "Hot Stuff". Not to mention that Summer is the only artist in the Rock Era to have 3-consecutive double albums hit #1 in the Billboard Charts from 1978-1980.

Other noteworthy rock artists that SHOULD have been inducted in 2008 are Linda Ronstadt, Pat Benatar and Hall & Oates. My 2 cents!

Posted by DJ on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 09:48am

"So you'd propose that the Hall, ideally, would make sure that each year they try to purposefully amass a thorough cross secton of eras/decades for induction, something similar to the forced segregation of genres I suggested?"-shawn

No. Didn't say that at all. I think they should be keeping up with the deserving eligibles, however. It's not my fault that they're allowing their backlog to swell so much that they have to arbitrarily decide between an older and newer artist when both might be equally worthy.

"Chronological order deserves some regard, I think."-shawn

To a degree, but not when choosing between two musicians who have no direct correlation to one another. It is valid when one of your choices influenced or made possible the achievements of the other, however.

"There is a constituancy that feels that there are a lot of artists from the 70's they are missing in the Hall who are being passed over year after year like discarded Halloween candy, and they don't want to hear about The Beasties or Madonna or disco era acts yet. I tend to agree."-shawn

And some of those people ARE more deserving, but many are less.

"Just out of curiosity William, who would you induct from 1979 or earlier before 1980 and up?"-shawn

Don't feel like listing.

"Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?"-me

"Not neccesarily at all"-shawn

Well of course not across the board. I never claimed that.

"and so what anyway?"-shawn

Because it matters. I could take a newer artist, say the Beasties, which you mentioned, and argue that because their impact is already huge and, because of their continued existence, constantly increasing, and because that influence is evident in a far greater amount of bands today and will likely continue to trickle down for some time, they might deserve induction more than, say, The Dave Clark Five.

"Shouldn't there be a rule that if a nominated artist isn't voted in then they can't be renominated for a minimum of 5 years??"-interviewer

Right, because we don't want The Stooges getting their due anytime soon, right?

Pretty much the only way for the few sensible people on the nominating committee to force through deserving artists that Wenner doesn't absolutely adore is to continually re-nominate them until they either run out of "better" choices to induct or the public outcry over continued snubbing forces them to capitulate (which happens sometime between rarely and never). Why take away that one pitiful check against the voters' almost absolute power?

"And also if the choice is between a newer artist that recently qualifies and an older artist who is still touring and releasing new music then shouldn't that older artist receive higher consideration because of that fact???"-interviewer

How many people do you think were influenced by The Rolling Stones' "A Bigger Bang"? For a band that isn't actively experimenting with its sound, influence gradually declines over time.

Posted by William on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 10:54am

"Don't feel like listing."

What? You wrote a huge posting, yet will not answer Shawn's simple question of listing a few artists. I guess you feel more comfortable saying who should NOT be in rather than who you DO want in.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 11:08am

"What? You wrote a huge posting, yet will not answer Shawn's simple question of listing a few artists."-Matzo Ball

Because it's a pain in the ass, it compromises my principle that influence and innovation trump all other factors (including sales and chronological order), and all it will do is invite dissenters to chew on my ass for getting the list "wrong" in their eyes. But if it'll shut you up (and I know it won't), I'd say Captain Beefheart, MC5, The Stooges, Kraftwerk, and Nick Drake. Off the top of my head, those are the only ones from pre-'79 that are must-haves before anything else (although that has more to do with their inherent importance than with the fact that they happened to be hanging around earlier than guys like Sonic Youth). There might be a couple more I've forgotten, and as I said I'm sure everyone and his brother will give me hell for what I didn't include, but there it is.

"I guess you feel more comfortable saying who should NOT be in rather than who you DO want in."-Matzo Ball

Piss off, troll.

Posted by William on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 11:23am

Me: The affirmative action for younger acts proposal.

"No. Didn't say that at all. I think they should be keeping up with the deserving eligibles, however." - William

I know you didn't - I was just putting a pragmatic suggestion out there on how to ensure they might keep up ---- can I assume you don't like the idea of mandating a spectrum of eras, or will that just get me another "I never said that" retort?

"Chronological order deserves some regard, I think."-me

"To a degree, but not when choosing between two musicians who have no direct correlation to one another." -William

Really? You think seniority isn't relevant when you're comparing two artists of (theoretically) equal merit in their respective categories, one born before the other, perhaps by 10+ years; chronology doesn't bear some deference?

Further than that, you don't feel any nagging dissatisfaction from worthy 70's era artists ignored while the Hall move onward ever onward to 1980+?

"And some of those people ARE more deserving (*from 1979 back), but many are less." -William

And so that was my only reason for asking you who you miss from '79 prior - wasn't for novelty - I had a point: I suspected that your 70's list would be pretty short, and that the issue of "keeping up" for you has little to actually do with continuing influence, mostly to do with the simple fact that your most of your personal favs just happen to have come to life post 1979.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

"For a band that isn't actively experimenting with its sound, influence gradually declines over time." -William

Ceratinly. But what any given artist acheived and how influential they once were is not lost like a fart in the wind to the effect of negating their HISTORICAL significance. It's there... it did happen... that's part of the mission of a museum, Hall - to analyze the evidence in time and report it.
You like to ignore that and focus on 2007 too much, brother. The present and future is an admirable focus, but paramount to this Hall IS the history lesson.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 13:49pm

Q) Isn't part of the problem with "not keeping up with the times" the fact that there's only 5 inductees per year- yet the same people like "The Stooges" (nominated 4 straight years 04-07) and others keep on being nominated?

Shouldn't there be a rule that if a nominated artist isn't voted in then they can't be renominated for a minimum of 5 years??


A) Right, because we don't want The Stooges getting their due anytime soon, right?

Pretty much the only way for the few sensible people on the nominating committee to force through deserving artists that Wenner doesn't absolutely adore is to continually re-nominate them until they either run out of "better" choices to induct or the public outcry over continued snubbing forces them to capitulate (which happens sometime between rarely and never). Why take away that one pitiful check against the voters' almost absolute power? -William


William, you accused Shawn of putting words in your mouth-now aren't you doing the same by implying the question suggested that "The Stooges" didn't deserve to be inducted??

If the powers that be aren't going to change the format and allow more nominees then isn't this just one of life's tough choices, i.e. is it worth gumming up the works by renominating 1 deserving band like "The Stooges" (who definitely played a part in laying the groundwork for punk even though other bands before them also played a role)......

OR

Is it more important to address the bigger problem of "allowing their backlog to swell" by instituting a simple rule to prevent the same artist (deserving or not) from constantly taking up valuable space on the ballots???

Posted by interviewer on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 20:25pm

"Isn't part of the problem.. fact that there's only 5 inductees per year" -interviewer

I say and have repeatedly and emphatically said YES to this question, view. 5 per year is this aggravatingly inadequate number that I think Wenner & Co. have wangled to intentionally create scarcity - their fucking employing the long-line-in-front-of-the-nightclub schtick to cultivate an arrogated air of exclusivity.

They're turning their back on an inclusive, timeline of rock history model in favor of the "we're so hip not because of who is in here, but who is NOT; don't-cha wish you were?"

The backlog has swollen up like a goddamn refugee camp now in 2007. If the Hall is concerned at all with staying relevant, it better pull its head out and start structuring its inductee lists with some purpose.
1) Yes, increase the inductees to 8 per year.
2) Give 2 of the nominations and votes per year to music journalists like the Pitchfork staff and Christgau. This would immediately infuse new interest and enthusiasm and make a huge stride towards gaining some credibility.
3) Manipulate the vote. Categorize it. Give the voters 6 nominees for 2 spots for a post-punk pioneer, for instance: (.."this year, you may choose from Sonic Youth, The Replacements, Husker Du, The Cure, Joy Division or Gang of Four"),
4 nominees for 1 prog rock spot: ("choose one of Genesis, King Crimson, Moody Blues or Rush.)

or they could change their format year to year, tailor it to their taste and choose by decade the next year perhaps:

6 noms for 2 spots from '70-'79: (.."your choices are The Cars, Cheap Trick, Brian Eno, Roxy Music, Doobie Brothers or War"),

6 choices for 2 spots for artists first recording 1969 or earlier: (.."select 2 from Jeff Beck, Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, Joe Cocker, Chicago or Steve Miller Band.")

"If the powers that be aren't going to change the format and allow more nominees then isn't this just one of life's tough choices, i.e. is it worth gumming up the works by renominating 1 deserving band like "The Stooges" -interviewer

I don't mind that. If a band like The Stooges should be getting in, camp them there until the voters see the light.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 21:42pm

Who cares? The ceremony airs on VH1 "classic", not even the original. It is like number 30 on most people's list of things to do, if on their list at all, just after take a dump and brush teeth.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 21:55pm

As an observer of the Rock Hall for a number of years, I feel that I should, to balance the contenders newly eligible in 2008/2009 with some artists already eligible but who I feel might have a chance of getting in even though most have never been on the ballot.

1) Def Leppard: Eligible since 2004/2005, their earliest recordings have been disowned and 2008/2009 corresponds with 25 years after their rise to superstardom. It is hard to see Bon Jovi getting in before Def Leppard do.

2) Eurythmics: eligible since 2006/2007, their first recordings are virtually unknown and they became stars at the same time as Def Leppard.

3) Tina Turner (solo): Despite having been previously eligible, most people see her solo career as beginning properly with "Private Dancer" and that was such a smash it should give her a chance.

4) Depeche Mode: Previously considered by the nominating committee, like the three artists previously they first established their new sound around 1984 with Martin Gore's songwriting. Less popular, though, so less likely to be on the 2008/2009 ballot.

5) Kraftwerk: On the 2002/2003 ballot, it will be interesting to see if their influence on 1980s pop gets them considered again.

6) Peter Gabriel (solo): eligible since 2002/2003 but now well-known in the US until well into the eighties. His best chance may be around 2011/2012, but as he became more popular in the US with time it may be harder for the committee to overlook him even if Wenner does not like him.

7) Iron Maiden: Already received votes from the nominating committee, and their role in influencing 1980s metal (which became THE popular music in the US) makes me think they have a reacl chance.

8) The Cars: Like the first three acts here, peaked around 25 years before the 2008/2009 induction.

9) The Replacements: the most critically lauded of the 1980s alternative acts: Richie Unterberger said they were likely to be inducted in 2002 - see what the 2008/2009 ballot tells us!

Leonard Cohen's induction has made me consider other singer/songwriters, notably Kate Bush and Tim Buckley (neither of whom have ever got a vote from the nominating committee) plus Nick Drake and Laura Nyro.

It is important to recognise, though that the expressive femininity and complex narratives of Nyro and Bush will likely keep them out of contention unless sweeping changes are made to the judges.

Posted by Julien Peter Benney on Saturday, 12.15.07 @ 23:43pm

I go away for one gig, yes ONE Kaiser Chiefs gig, and THIS happens....

Posted by liam on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 06:09am

I didn´t expect it. But Leonard Cohen deserves his nomination, for me he is one of the greatest artists, a fantastic poet of the inner voice.Many thanks from Austria..Wolfgang

Posted by wolfgang on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 10:43am

Herman's Hermits? The lightest of lightweight bands. C'mon, we can do MUCH better.

Chicago? One great record (their first). Otherwise, nearly as lightweight as HH's.

I think disco, rap and hip hop do not belong in the RnR HOF. They're not rock or anything close to it. That being said, I'd put in a pitch for Donna Summer. Yes, she was super-disco for most of her career. But around 1980, she showed, like Blondie, that disco and RnR could co-exist in the same song. Check out "Hot Stuff" with its guitar solo and rock drum fills. That was revolutionary.

Posted by The King on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 15:38pm

I think disco/dance music belongs in the HOF because it's derived from blues and jazz. How do you think Sly and the Family Stone or Funkadelic got in ???? Rap on the other hand doesn't deserve because it doesn't involve singing and proper musical notes. Plus it's not Rock and Roll, or anything that's close to it. Take Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, Afrika Bambattaa, and Sugarhill Gang and put them in a Rap Hall of Fame where they belong, or a plain Music Hall of Fame, anything that can rightfully honor rap music.
Put in more 1960's and 1970's bands and then the Hall of Fame would at least serves it's own purpose.

Posted by Patrick on Sunday, 12.16.07 @ 16:47pm

William, are we done with our conversation? Are you pissed off?

Posted by shawn on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 00:30am

I didn't see it until now.

"Really? You think seniority isn't relevant when you're comparing two artists of (theoretically) equal merit in their respective categories, one born before the other, perhaps by 10+ years; chronology doesn't bear some deference?"-shawn

No. Impact trumps all. If two thinks are of precisely equal impact (which won't happen), then flip a coin. Besides, giving deference to older musicians when the two are equally deserving is completely different than giving it to them when they are not, which is the typical situation.

"Further than that, you don't feel any nagging dissatisfaction from worthy 70's era artists ignored while the Hall move onward ever onward to 1980+?"-shawn

As I said, it's not my fault they're getting behind on their own quota. But even if The Dave Clark Five do deserve in, no matter how long they've been waiting, they still deserve it less than Sonic Youth.

"I suspected that your 70's list would be pretty short, and that the issue of "keeping up" for you has little to actually do with continuing influence, mostly to do with the simple fact that your most of your personal favs just happen to have come to life post 1979."-shawn

Except you would be wrong. Regardless of how many of my "favorites" are from whatever era, I don't bring favoritism into this. I don't even talk about most of them.

"But what any given artist acheived and how influential they once were is not lost like a fart in the wind to the effect of negating their HISTORICAL significance. It's there... it did happen... that's part of the mission of a museum, Hall - to analyze the evidence in time and report it."-shawn

Never said it did, just that longer careers doesn't necessarily mean greater impact since the later albums aren't going to be as inspiring as the first few, no matter how objectively good they still are.

"You like to ignore that and focus on 2007 too much, brother."-shawn

Where have I done this? I'm not even discussing this year.

"The present and future is an admirable focus, but paramount to this Hall IS the history lesson."-shawn

It's the impact of history on the present and the future. That's the whole reason anyone studies history. If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?

Posted by William on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 00:52am

I think, shawn, that you have made some wrongful connection between "age of artist" and "level of impact". You can't create a rule, as then you'd have a situation where it gets used out of context. Also, by giving a priority to artists from before 1979, you are essentially belittling post 1980.

Posted by liam on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 11:48am

No, he is saying that if you have two artists that deserve induction (and no they do not necessarily have to be equal in terms of their deserving of induction, but lets just say they both deserve induction), why not let seniority be the trump card? And, as for belittling 1980 and beyond I did not take that from his posts.

Posted by Matzo Ball on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 17:45pm

"if you have two artists that deserve induction (and no they do not necessarily have to be equal in terms of their deserving of induction, but lets just say they both deserve induction), why not let seniority be the trump card?"

Because it is giving the older an unfair advantage over the younger, and that's despite the fact that it isn't possible to have two artists who's impact is perfectly identical.

"And, as for belittling 1980 and beyond I did not take that from his posts."

That really echoes the sort of post a certain someone used to make. Anyway, do you not see what I'm getting at? Shawn drew a distinction between "1979 and earlier" and "1980 and later". By giving the 1979 artists a trumo card, just because they are older, you could be seen as vlauing it as more than the younger artist.

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 12.18.07 @ 10:47am

"No, he is saying that if you have two artists that deserve induction (and no they do not necessarily have to be equal in terms of their deserving of induction, but lets just say they both deserve induction),"

This is a classic Anonymous. Notice that he both fails to understand another person's point, and his own interpretation on things is wrong.

What'll you use next? Peartlover101? Leahcim? Don't bother.

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 12.18.07 @ 13:40pm

"I think, shawn, that you have made some wrongful connection between "age of artist" and "level of impact"...by giving a priority to artists from before 1979, you are essentially belittling post 1980." -Liam

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well enough; William's point that a fully deserving artist who is now eligible should be judged on thier impact just as evenly as one who has been eligible/waiting for 10+ years, and should not be hamstrung and automatically "get in line" is well taken - that is something I do concur with. I was not pushing that age trumps all or that age is a priority pass. I was simply saying that because of the backlog from the 70's, and the ever growing public outrage over this, that perhaps the idea of structured nomination categories would remove the randomness and calm the controversy.

I realize this goes against William's gospel of "impact and innovation by my/people like me's measure", but I am of the mind that that is stodgy, grumpy, erudite and rigid.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 08:49am

"Regardless of how many of my "favorites" are from whatever era, I don't bring favoritism into this."

Horseshit. Plug in most of your "objective" criteria that you want and it's still Your favorite criteria, ergo your favorite choices. I am not saying that the choices you like (and that's the correct phrase - "like", like that or not) are wrong ones - I think I'd concur with your personal judgment 80% or more - but the WAY artists are judged is conflicted and contentious, so please don't be self assured enough to sit there aend claim you are Neutral Ned. You're not a computer program; even that would be subjective though, by the way it was programmed.

"Wouldn't..closer proximity to modern music..give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?
It's the impact of history on the present and the future. That's the whole reason anyone studies history. If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?" -William

First, define "Anything". Jeezus William.
Secondly, impact on the present - fine, there for all to see and judge.
But future impact? You have that much confidence in your Ouija board, do you? Or are you just that smart?
You really feel like you can look over the current musical landscape and declare that Sonic Youth or White Stripes or Arcade Fire or Arctic Monkeys are going to catch the ears and musical hearts the individual fledgling musician in his/her bedroom and basement than that old cd of Beatles or Rush or Pink Floyd or Steve Miller or Cat Stevens or Ray Charles?
That's speculative to the point of arrogance.

"..just that longer careers doesn't necessarily mean greater impact since the later albums aren't going to be as inspiring as the first few, no matter how objectively good they still are. -William

..How many people do you think were influenced by The Rolling Stones' "A Bigger Bang"? For a band that isn't actively experimenting with its sound, influence gradually declines over time. -William

.. if we're not keeping up with the times, then why have the museum in the first place? Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself?" -William

Elton John, Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Eagles...more...
All Hall inductees whose musical contributions it could be argued seriously diminished in quality and force and consequtnly whose Impact on current music it could be argued waned. Yes?
So, if these artists were, hypothetically, still not in the Hall here in 2007, are you saying that someone like Sonic Youth would deserve induction before any of them by your standards?





"..but if there's a thirty-some-odd-year gap between them and us, how exactly are you showing that progression?

You're inserting a standard that is too lofty, scholarly and in many ways, completely unneccesary. Relax.
The 25 year waiting period pretty much precludes your complete timeline connection wish - there's a built in gap, isn't there? That alone supports the history for history's sake paradigm, even when there's not a vibrant irrefutable pipeline to some nascent youth movement here in 2007, which seems to be your sermon.
Who are you to define a musical cul-de-sac anyway, professor? When does influence show up on a radar?

"Kim Gordon is 54. She'll be eligible for Social Security before long. Just saying I'd hate to only be getting around to inducting the "young" guys by the time they're senior citizens." -William

Yea, I know. Lots of people would like to see 70's rock icons perform before thay are all dead.
Sonic Youth shoulad have been able to perform 5-10 years ago.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 09:42am

The prbolem, shawn, is that it's almost impossible for artists of perfectly equal merit to exist.

But, as an example, I'll give you all a scenario of a place being battled for the Smiths and the Stooges. Next induction ceremony, even. Do you induct the Stooges, who've been nominated to no avail for, what is it, 6 times, or do you put in the Smiths, who only became eligible that year. It poses somewhat of a conundrum to William's 'impact uber alles' method, as I'd say the two aforementioned artists have similiar levels of impact, and yet the Stooges have been waiting around for far too long.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 11:19am

"Horseshit. Plug in most of your "objective" criteria that you want and it's still Your favorite criteria, ergo your favorite choices."

Shawn, you've got to accept that there's a limit on how subjective you can't be. If you REALLY wanted to nitpick, why not just go ahead and say that NOTHING can be completely objective? Because it would be a waste of fucking time typing it, that's why. Just accept that no one can be fully objective without either being a robot or an absolute bore. Or both.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 11:47am

"Elton John, Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Eagles...more...are you saying that someone like Sonic Youth would deserve induction before any of them by your standards?"

Definitely before Elton and Rod, although maybe you're confusing William's argument - he never said anything about forgetting the 25 year rule.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 11:57am

"The problem, shawn, is that it's almost impossible for artists of perfectly equal merit to exist." -liam

Indeed, yes. That is certainly just a laboratory scenario that may never actually exist, but come close, as in your Stooges vs Smiths duel, which is sure to be challenged by many, too.

Again, my concern for the ER waiting room of pre-1980 artists (a somewhat arbitary date) is one of general acknowledgment of a conspicuous crowd from a general era - the 70's. This somewhat tangental debate sprang from my proposition that the Hall simply try a structure and stratagem for not pissing more and more people off and not missing many musical notables who should have their walk of fame star already.... in my humble opinion, of course.

But again, not at the expense of a legitimately deserving artist whose 25 years have come to fruition. Sorry if I didn't nake that clear before.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:11pm

"Shawn, you've got to accept that there's a limit on how subjective you can't be. If you REALLY wanted to nitpick, why not just go ahead and say that NOTHING can be completely objective?" - liam

No, I do get that, I really do, and William has echoed this same fact before.
My problem is just with William & Co.'s narrow dogma of INFLUENCE & INNOVATION and the fact that he has ordained it Objective. Preach it, endorse it, swear by it, whatever -- but don't be so pretentious as to label it certified organic Objective, alright, because it's just not - it's but one fat measuring stick - there are many.

Dezmond just made a case for KISS using another stick - cultural presence, commercial presence, icky but undeniable significance through ubiquity.
Nebulous, inexact, but tangible.

There are nunerous angles and doors and windows through which an artist to gain justifiable enrty, often inexact combinations of them. But they don't need a fucking pedigree.

Dezmond also brings up a stubborn reality of the God INFLUENCE, which I have mentioned before - it demonstrates its power without regard to quality, doesn't it? Will William still kneel at the altar of influence when the artists on deck are KISS and Def Leppard and such, or will he try to circumvent that nasty duble edge by just leapfrogging a bit farther back in rock time and sayng "band A did that first, so sucky band B's influence is moot."?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:35pm

"Definitely before Elton and Rod, although maybe you're confusing William's argument - he never said anything about forgetting the 25 year rule" -liam

You're missing my point with that, mate.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:37pm

"Horseshit. Plug in most of your "objective" criteria that you want and it's still Your favorite criteria, ergo your favorite choices."-shawn

I find this offensive and more than a little unsound. They are not my "favorite" criteria, but rather the only criteria that make any sense to me. If you were to ask me to choose between two different criteria for the Baseball Hall of Fame, say for example "batting average" and "number of hats worn," would I be playing favorites by picking the statistic that has the most to do with how the actual game is played?

And what's more, I can prove how my criteria influence the "game" of music. For one, there's INFLUENCE. The word itself is all the argument it needs. Secondly, innovation impacts music. From the invention of the electric guitar to the incorporation of outlandish instruments like the theremin and singing saw, they permanently change how the game is played from then on. It has real consequences for all music forever. Forever. Sales are temporal. The non-musicians who buy records have no direct influence on the game. All they're good for is measuring trends that have already been established. So if you're going to accuse me of picking criteria out of convenience, kindly remove the plank from your eye and explain how the criteria I'm choosing to ignore are valid in the first place. The burden of proof is no longer on me.

"Secondly, impact on the present - fine, there for all to see and judge.
But future impact? You have that much confidence in your Ouija board, do you? Or are you just that smart? "-shawn

To a limited degree, predictions about the future based on past and present evidence can be made. I think you're just trying to be a jerk.

"You really feel like you can look over the current musical landscape and declare that Sonic Youth or White Stripes or Arcade Fire or Arctic Monkeys are going to catch the ears and musical hearts the individual fledgling musician in his/her bedroom and basement than that old cd of Beatles or Rush or Pink Floyd or Steve Miller or Cat Stevens or Ray Charles?
That's speculative to the point of arrogance."-shawn

Well if you paid the slightest bit of attention to any of my posts regarding future eligibles (of which I have opposed The White Stripes and not even discussed Arcade Fire or Arctic Monkeys), I always qualify my predictions: "If such and such happens and they do this or that, I think they stand a fair shot." That's hardly the same as saying "lock. I r teh smarterest." Sonic Youth has already made its mark and is doing so presently. Assuming it will continue to do so is hardly arrogant, but point is, I don't have to prove that. They already deserve in.

"Elton John, Rod Stewart, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Eagles...more...
All Hall inductees whose musical contributions it could be argued seriously diminished in quality and force and consequtnly whose Impact on current music it could be argued waned. Yes?
So, if these artists were, hypothetically, still not in the Hall here in 2007, are you saying that someone like Sonic Youth would deserve induction before any of them by your standards?"-shawn

Before Rod Stewart and The Eagles, I would, but not Elton John, The Stones, or Clapton. You seem to be conveniently forgetting the crux of my argument that was "influence and innovation trump all." Much as I love Sonic Youth, and believe them to be at least as innovative if not moreso than ALL of those, they were not more influential than The Rolling Stones.

Now once again, IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT THE HALL HAS THIS HUGE BACKLOG. I want to stress that. If they could actually keep up with the number of deserving eligibles, this would not be a problem. And people are free to debate which artists are more deserving providing they can defend their choices as well as the criteria they use. If they can't, however, I am free to say that they are spouting out of their asses.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:51pm

Maybe I missed something - I THINK that what you're getting at is that IF two 'equal' artists came across each other - one being older and having waited ages, the other being a new eligible - the older artist should receive priority SIMPLY because they've had to wait.

""band A did that first, so sucky band B's influence is moot."?"

Depends on who "band C" is in this situation, that is to say who band B is supposed to have influenced. If band B has had a definite influence on enough band C's, and those band C's are of at least decent quality, then band B definitely deserves to receive note.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 12:57pm

"..and those band C's are of at least decent quality.." -liam

No, no, no, no.. who said we could bring quality into it? Influence is influence - it don't know no stinkin' quality - live by it, die by it.

Quality IS the ultimate trump card and the most subjective of all the Commandments and the silent partner in almost (almost) every so-called objective opinion.

You're tapping right into my overall thematic point here, liam.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:06pm

Shawn, you onbviously know what I mean, otherwise you wouldn't have made that "just like how the smell of my fart influenced you to vomit" comment.

We really do have to look at exactly WHO gets influenced, not just the blank statistic of HOW MANY artists get influenced. Otherwise, you know, some bad stuff would happen...

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:10pm

" THINK that what you're getting at is that IF two 'equal' artists came across each other - one being older and having waited ages, the other being a new eligible - the older artist should receive priority SIMPLY because they've had to wait." -laim

Yes, I would say that (William says flip a coin). But I agree with you that situation is likely an entirely theoretical one and one artist can always be argued as more impatful than another, no matter how detailed that gets.

Honestly, my grievance is just that many of the 70's artists I bemoan the abandonemant of are being trivialized and lost in time and William's perspective of "if they aren't in the air right now, where is there lasting significance" is dismisive and discards many 70's gems who should get a nod because they just don't satisfy some hip factor anymore.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:14pm

Look, just remeber that William never argued aginst them being inducted.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:17pm

"Shawn, you onbviously know what I mean, otherwise you wouldn't have made that "just like how the smell of my fart influenced you to vomit" comment." -liam

(Laughing).. yea, I remember that comment. I don't remember what page I made that on, so I can't examine whether you parsed that a little out of context or if I was anti-influence period and my stance has adjusted since then, but my feelings currently are that Influence is surely A - as in one of many - possible moving factors that must be evaluated on its own merits, as demonstrated in Dezmond's KISS Keltner workup. I hear what you are warning against too, Liam, and I would reply that Quality is the fickled beast that does rule the day, but it has to let influence - bad though it may be - have its say.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:22pm

""Look, just remeber that William never argued aginst them being inducted." -liam

I was using the KISS example for our talk on influence good and bad, not the talk on age of inductees/William.
We're juggling a couple of arguments simultaneously here and I'll be sure to try not to spill one into the other if you don't too.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:27pm

"They are not my "favorite" criteria, but rather the only criteria that make any sense to me." -William

Oh for the love of Thurston Moore, William......
Accuse me of mild hyperbole if you must, but don't be so tedious with my semantics. Come on.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:31pm

"and William's perspective of "if they aren't in the air right now, where is there lasting significance" is dismisive and discards many 70's gems who should get a nod because they just don't satisfy some hip factor anymore."-shawn

My what? Huh? When did I say this? Who's playing Nick Drake today? Captain Beefheart? The Sonics? Blue Cheer? None of those are exactly getting much love from the younger generation (although perhaps some Iron & Wine fans might stumble upon Nick Drake by accident). You're really stretching to paint me with this hipster brush, but saying it doesn't make it so. I never said that if they're not influencing people here and now that their past influence is moot, which is what you're implying. I'm never going to say that either.

"Oh for the love of Thurston Moore, William......
Accuse me of mild hyperbole if you must, but don't be so tedious with my semantics. Come on."-shawn

Didn't look like semantics to me. It looked very clearly as though you were accusing me of picking criteria out of convenience, and it was offensive not only for accusing me of favoritism, but completely dismissing all the logical arguments I've made in favor of sensible criteria.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:42pm

"If you were to ask me to choose between two different criteria for the Baseball Hall of Fame, say for example "batting average" and "number of hats worn," would I be playing favorites by picking the statistic that has the most to do with how the actual game is played?" -William

This presumes that the two "statistics" you are choosing between with regards to the Rock Hall are similarly relevant and frivilous, of course.

Only two stats seem to make any sense to you: influence and innovation, snaggged from that form letter the Hall has put out in the past.

But as I read the Hall's manifesto, "Significance"
is the standard for their purpose: "to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll.."

Significance? Means a lot of things. More than two.

When you refer to the silly criteria "number of hats worn", what are you referring to?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:44pm

"and William's perspective of "if they aren't in the air right now, where is there lasting significance"..." -me

"My what? Huh? When did I say this? Who's playing Nick Drake today?"

Again with being Miss Fussbucket over the semantics? "In The Air" - as in "in the collective consciousness of the newer gereation of artists" --- not literally on the radio airwaves.
You serious?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:49pm

"Significance? Means a lot of things. More than two."-shawn

So what else does it mean in terms of "the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll"? That's the key part. Offer up some alternative criteria if you're going to whine about the ones I use when I've explained my position repeatedly.

"Again with being Miss Fussbucket over the semantics? "In The Air" - as in "in the collective consciousness of the newer gereation of artists" --- not literally on the radio airwaves.
You serious?"-shawn

Well forgive me for not understanding an argument meted out entirely in subtext. Maybe I'm too simpleminded, or else maybe you're getting carried away with your thesaurus. My point remains: Never said that. Naturally I would argue that the greatest influence would logically be the longest-lived, such as Buddy Guy's incalculable influence on blues-rock and thus pretty much all rock to follow afterward up to the present day, but that's not a requirement. Captain Beefheart isn't influencing a lot today either, or at least not directly, but I would argue that he was the most innovative of any musician in the past century. What you call "semantics" I call "misinterpretation." But I'm at least going to lengths to attempt to be understood.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 13:59pm

"Well if you paid the slightest bit of attention to any of my posts regarding future eligibles.. I always qualify my predictions: "If such and such happens and they do this or that, I think they stand a fair shot." That's hardly the same as saying "lock. I r teh smarterest." _Willaim

Give me an I, gimee an R, gimmee an R, gimmee an E.... Irreleavnt!!!!!!!
Standing a fair shot is dandy... and also has nothing to do with this debate, as it's quite seperate from stating this:

"Wouldn't their closer proximity to modern music and the fact that many of them are still writing and performing make give them more direct influence over the sounds of today and tomorrow?"

Maybe, but a) not neccesarily at all and..
b) again, why presume that to be true. Recorded music from any year can find its way into the hands and ipods of many, many a nascent musician. You're making a personal leap of logic.

"Sonic Youth has already made its mark and is doing so presently. Assuming it will continue to do so is hardly arrogant, but point is, I don't have to prove that. They already deserve in." -William

Indeed, no need to prove a thing about Sonic Youth; their mark is indelible.
I speak of the problem I have with your broader sense of ageism.
"Firstly, if we're not keeping up with the times, then why have the museum in the first place? Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself?" -William

Again, I feel your sense of history is too narrow, too rigid, too avant garde oriented.

And are you sure you don't want to rethink telling me that you'd seriously forego The Eagles or Rod Stewart today in favor of Sonic Youth? You really don't see how outer edge that colors you?

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:17pm

Let me put it in terms that you might understand: Eat a dick.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:19pm

"Didn't look like semantics to me. It looked very clearly as though you were accusing me of picking criteria out of convenience..accusing me of favoritism.."

I'm challenging your sole criteria themselves, not your mission.

It's not really that I think you have some agenda and your criteria of choice conveniently "serve" you and your doctrine... I would challenge your narrow choice of criteria; I called you myopic before, remember? You said in order to be myopic, there has to be something you are ignoring, and we went through this.



" and it was offensive..for..completely dismissing all the logical arguments I've made in favor of sensible criteria. -William

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:27pm

"Let me put it in terms that you might understand: Eat a dick." -W

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!! I love you William!

"But I'm at least going to lengths to attempt to be understood."

Indeed.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 14:36pm

"Let me put it in terms that you might understand: Eat a dick." -W

Since this argument is apparently gone as far as it can without stretching the lines of decorum is an entirely new approach needed??

Since the rules currently in place for induction like 25 years wait, only 5 inductees per year aren't going to change any time soon by the looks of it- then why not break ground on an entirely new building maybe even in a different city and call it "The Post-Modern Rock Hall Of Fame?"

Why not make the cutoff point 1983-the year that CD's were introduced? This way all the stuff like The Smiths, Naked Raygun, My Bloody Valentine, etc. don't hve to compete with The Stooges, Connie Francis, Donovan, etc...

If something like this isn't done soon then this situation will continue to spiral out of control and the animosity/frustration will continue to grow, won't it?

Posted by interviewer on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 15:35pm

Alright, that is it - you two go to your rooms!

Posted by Matzo Ball on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 17:52pm

"Significance? Means a lot of things. More than two."-shawn

"So what else does it mean in terms of "the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll"? That's the key part. Offer up some alternative criteria if you're going to whine about the ones I use.. (innovation & influence)" - W.

In ADDITION to I & I, some possible criteria, though no one rules the day and any given artist may be significant in one or many:

--- QUALITY of:
- song structure
- lyrical content
- musicianship
- overall body of work
- consistency of quality work

----Any:
- landmark albums?
- landmark singles?
- landmark performances?

- "real" longevity
- sales success over a significant period
- chart success " " " "
- concert sales success "" " "

- a maintained ubiquity over a significant period of time
- considered a key member of a notable genre
- considered a pioneer member of a notable genre

History, history, history. Did it happen in time?
If you can map their influence and demonstrate a legacy that reaches all the way to today and can make a nice case that it will perpetuate into tomorrow for some time too, that's a very nice bonus badge and signifies that history will show them to be that much more significant; but it's not prerequisite.
Your Hall would max out its fraternity pledge list really quickly with your code, William.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 12.19.07 @ 23:24pm

Well interviewer, something like your suggestion could be an alternative - like a music journalist and musician's run Hall of Fame, but this current Hall could immediately solve the credibility debt and broaden its appeal by simply adding to and tweaking its nomination process by humbling itself and outsourcing a couple of the inductions to Pitchfork & Co.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 12.20.07 @ 22:12pm

Wow - it must have gotten much worse if the site's admin squad is even deleting my question about yesterday. Anyone able to give me the news before this is zapped again? What happened with Liam and "Hey Joe"?

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 07:10am

Yeah, in reading these posts I see that Liam used to "fight" with anon, and many others, then "Hey Joe." Common denominator? Pattern?

Posted by Matzo Ball on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 07:40am

I don't know, shawn. The admins have some explaining to do. (liam)

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:05am

Unless there is some sort of problem occuring with the admin team, I'll ask one question: Why delete mine, and, by the looks of it, shawn's posts, when you leave the blatant adverts and spams?

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:07am

Geezus Krist Michael, just shut the f**k up already, will you? I can't believe your stupidity and audacity. Nobody is fooled - everybody sees you, your stupid voice is that recognizable; do you have any semblance of personal dignity whatsoever, dude? I'll leave you alone as "Matzo", but not if you continue to push it. Just keep your stupid yap shut with regard to liam or anything related. Damn.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:09am

FFS, I have ONE spat with a Kiss fan boy/Anonymous, and my name gets blocked. One problem thought, as I can obviously just go on under a different name. Why not just accept that I was a bit overboard on the insults last night, and let me use "liam" again? Please.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:15am

"Please keep comments relevant to the topic."

That'd explain why: fanboy comments, adverts, spams and, less so, personal attacks are left on.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:17am

The Great OZ has spoken! I feel like I just heard from the Burning Bush.

I will say this liam, it was probably a good policy for you to just ignore "hey Joe"'s garbage yesterday because you are being toyed with.
If it was Michael, he was just tormenting and baiting you the way I did him as "tostada ted, "taco bill", etc.
If it was, by small chance, actually a different individual, then he claerly sees that anon/michael enrages you and he was utilizing that for his own amusement.

Eiter way, you were being played with. Don't give him the satisfaction. His twisted joy can only come now from petty, occasional jabs from the dark of the corners he's been relegated to.
He knows what an ass he's made of himself and he's gnawing at his limbs because of it.
Let Gollum writhe in bitterness alone and shut him out.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:23am

"Let Gollum writhe in bitterness alone and shut him out."

Oh I'm sure he has plenty of other outletts and hobbies. That's why he's so obssesive.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:27am

He craves attention. Truly ignoring him will render him inert and harmless, if we can stomach it.
In the defense of FRH admin, they do actually let a LOT of stuff go that I am often surprised at; they could clamp down on you and I and others a lot harsher than they do, if they enforced their stated rules very stringintly. What I witnessed of that smack-back-and-forth between you and "Joe" yesterday did venture into the realm of the absurd, my friend - it had to be stopped.
I laughed my ass off thought at your snooker ball in a sock comment! Classic. Still laughing (almost as hard as William telling me to eat a dick!)

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:33am

Yeah, trust me to not know when to stop. I'm sure that if we weren't as funny as we are, the admins would have booted us.

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:38am

So William, getting back to relevance in the context of preoccupation for "keeping up to date" vs respect for history, one of the things you said keeps standing out for me and I'd like to hear your explanation:
"It's the impact of history on the present and the future. That's the whole reason anyone studies history. If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?

and: "Why learn history if it's only going to outpace itself?"

1) What is your defintion of "ANYTHING"? This is probably the core of my isuue with your paradigm.

2)Why learn history? You seem to have little use and little regard for the music you see as beneath you. If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the epiphany for a genre today, are you saying that their spoilage date has expired and their historical significance and time in the sun is irrelevant.

It seems this way, though I'm sure you'll get pissy with me and accuse me of subtext again.

You've really got the whole surly thing down pat.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 08:51am

I only have one word for you all:)

SCORPIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by KaThLeEn:) on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 12:02pm

Ok guys, new list.
Your top ten music videos EVER:

"The Masterplan" - Oasis

"Just" - Radiohead

"Shiny Happy People" - R.E.M. (no, it isn't their greatest song, but the video is funny, in a quirky kind of way)

"Alright" - Supergrass

"Windowlicker" and "Come To Daddy" - Aphex Twin

"Firestarter" - Prodigy

"How Soon Is Now?" - The Smiths

"Teardrop" - Massive Attack

"Fools Gold" - Stone Roses (actually, it might be "I Wanna Be Adored" - the video is of them on this purple-ish background)



That's not in any order, apart from how I could remember them.

- liam

Posted by not lol on Friday, 12.21.07 @ 13:21pm

"1) What is your defintion of "ANYTHING"? This is probably the core of my isuue with your paradigm."-shawn

I really don't understand the question. My definition of "anything"? Well "amounting to something" means being of value or significance, so I guess I meant "Why learn something unless it is significant?" And it wouldn't BE significant if it didn't impact the present in some way. "If a tree falls in the forest" and all that jazz.

"Why learn history? You seem to have little use and little regard for the music you see as beneath you. If you can't produce a definitive flow chart showing an artist to be the epiphany for a genre today, are you saying that their spoilage date has expired and their historical significance and time in the sun is irrelevant."-shawn

1) No, I'm not saying that. As I have said many times (enough to get sick of repeating myself), I enjoy plenty of musicians that I do not regard as innovative, influential, or both. But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different.

2) Stop with the unneccesarily flowery language. I'm seeing way too many awkward and out of place words, such as "epiphany" as used above.

"It seems this way, though I'm sure you'll get pissy with me and accuse me of subtext again."-shawn

Well when you say something like "in the air" and expect me to intuit that you meant "in the collective consciousness of the newer generation of artists," hell yes I get "pissy." How did you honestly expect me, or anyone in the entire world for that matter, to know that's what you meant?

Posted by W on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 01:05am

"..If it didn't amount to anything, then why learn it?" -William

"What is your defintion of "ANYTHING"?" -shawn

"Well "amounting to something" means being of value or significance.." -W

"..so I guess I meant "Why learn something unless it is significant?"" -W

"..deserving a spot in history because it truly matters.." -W

--- 'Of vaule', 'of significance', 'truly matters'.... those are all of the same vague subjectivity as 'amount to anything', aren't they? Thanks for that.
But you do keep returning to this one, lone standard:

"...it wouldn't BE significant if it didn't impact the present in some way. "If a tree falls in the forest" and all that jazz."

We disagree both on what impacting the present means, and we have a different reverance for history for history's own sake.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 11:01am

This began with my objection to A-Killa's guffaw at the "relevance" of 3 inductees from the 60's.

"Why would the relevance of a year's inductions hinge on the age of those inductees, i.e., the proximity of their first recording to our current year?" -me

You keep asserting that we need to "keep up with the times" and not let "history outpace itself",

I say: "Why should "keeping up to date" come into the consideration equation at all? Merit is merit."

You dismiss too much; you have a hipster soul no matter that you deny it. That's why you would be on the extremist end of a nominating committee table. Saying things like:
"But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different." -W
is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is.
It's the Truly Matters part.
Because tell me - In Specifics - the artists that "matter".

You won't do it. Because it insults you, irritates you - the question itself is an affront to the priviledges of your perch.

I have much, much respect for your vast knowledge, William, but you're a phucking grouchy Obi-Wan. Your the "Stupid Sniper" - you sit there in your tree and snipe off stupids as they jog by.
But you resent it when someone shouts a question up at you about your aim.

You know what, "sounding good on my cd player" actually IS more significant (often, not always) than you would acknowledge.

Again, we always come back to the "truly MATTERS" part.

"2) Stop with the unneccesarily flowery language. I'm seeing way too many awkward and out of place words, such as "epiphany" as used above." -W

Bugger off, grumpy guru. Epiphany is a common word that fit just fine there in describing an artist that appeared on the scene and in historical perspective manifested itself as something of a deity or essential paragon for a genre.

Nitpicking word usage and subtext is an antic I would have thought you better than, Mr. Bill. Very "Anon-ish".

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 11:24am

"You dismiss too much; you have a hipster soul no matter that you deny it."

What? Is that because he doesn't talk about his own musical tastes as regularly as we do? Is that it? I'm not actually sure what a "hipster soul" is - feel free to give an explanantion.

""But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different." -W
is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is.
It's the Truly Matters part.
Because tell me - In Specifics - the artists that "matter"."

Shawn, I think that your really putting words into William's mouth. In this context, that of "who deserves induction into a Music HoF?", simply "sounding good" to someone, even a musician themself, is simply not enough to qualify as a criteria for induction. Hey, it'd be a nice additional to help shove individual artists upto the Hall, but should it be counted against an artist, say, Brian Eno or Kraftwerk, simply because they aren't as accessible as, say, Oasis or the White Stripes?

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 11:38am

".. but should it be counted against an artist, say, Brian Eno or Kraftwerk, simply because they aren't as accessible as, say, Oasis or the White Stripes?" -Liam

No, no, not at all. I wasn't connecting "sounding good" to accessibility or catchiness. Besides that, I was NOT contrasting different artists nor using "sounds good in my cd player" as the gold standard.
I was trying to point out that there IS a value and a significance to artists in history (like those that may be on my or your cd player, just for instance) even if we cannot trace their lineage directly to a current "up to date" and flourishing genre, or provide a list of references that please an individual.

"..simply "sounding good" to someone, even a musician themself, is simply not enough to qualify as a criteria for induction." -liam

I agree. Of course. My argument with William currently rests in my belief that the stautes in his book of criteria are too restrictive.

"What? Is that because he doesn't talk about his own musical tastes as regularly as we do? Is that it?" -liam

No, that's not it.

"I'm not actually sure what a "hipster soul" is - feel free to give an explanantion." -liam

William is a hipster by virtue of his tastes, that's all. I can give you examples that I know of, if that is necessary.
I'm not impugning his tastes by any means; he's surely got great taste and vastly more knowledge than I, too.
I'm only bringing into question his judgment on who he finds worthy of a spot in the Hall .... who "Matters" as he puts it, a consequence of his tastes.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 12:18pm

"I can give you examples that I know of, if that is necessary."

Please do

Posted by LLIIAAMm on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 12:29pm

"Please do"

OK. But I'd like to wait for Willaim to be able to respond to the general post first, if he chooses.
Otherwise this could quickly get obfuscated and sidetracked. Once again, I'm not pushing an indictment of William's musical tastes.
I just disagree with his book of induction laws.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 12:51pm

"But deserving a spot in your CD player because it sounds good and deserving a spot in history because it truly matters are different." -W
is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is."

In perusing these posts, I think William can at times be snobbish, but so what? We all can. Shawn has made some good points too, but I think the point William was making, my take, is that there are plenty of great sounding artists that we all may listen to, but were not necessarily very innovative or influential. I mean there has to be some level of stringency, otherwise everyone would get in.

Of course, the problem lies with who are those artists that one may listen to quite a bit, but just don't seem to cut it for the hall. I know for me that might include: Journey, Styx, Blue Oyster Cult, Kansas, etc.

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:16pm

Who is this??

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:44pm

Ryan is our old pal, come back to try and slip back into the debating.

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:45pm

Old pal!!!!!!! Peek-a-boo, we see you Michael.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:48pm

Hey, I'll even do your next comment for you, "Ryan":

"Huh? Who's "Anon"? Surely this is a mistake?"

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:54pm

Nicely done, Liam. May I help too?

"I can only tell you I know nothing of a Michael or Anon. If you don't believe me, just read this note I have brought from my friend, Matzo Ball. He'll vouch for me."

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:00pm

Hahahahahaha!!! Can you imagine the look on his face right now?!

Or even his face?

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:04pm

--- Posted by Anonymous on the John Mellencamp page on Friday 3.16.07 @ 17:47pm:
"When you write songs that say: "Don't you feel Jesus in a small town" that just does not seem to cut it for me.."

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:16pm

-- Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 13:16pm:
"..those artists that one may listen to quite a bit, but just don't seem to cut it for the hall."

And you "just don't seem to cut it for" me, Michael.

You don't get off that easily now. Show us enough respect to fess up, acknowledge your past stupidity, repent and eat your crow, or shut the hell up and get bent.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 14:17pm

Look, I 'm just trying to have a conversation here, leave out the references to this anon character. Not sure why you keep bringing him in.

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 15:16pm

You're beyond pathetic, Michael.
Drop the act and we can start fresh.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 17:11pm

I do not understand how MY name is blocked, and yet he is allowed to repeat his rampages of stupidity as he so pleases.

Posted by LLIIAAMM on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 17:21pm

"is thinly veiled elitism - yes, yes it is. "-shawn

No it isn't, you Mr. Contrarian. It's the difference between a pretty painting and a masterpiece, between a good movie and a classic. I'm not saying I'm 100% right, and it's up for debate if anyone disagrees with my picks or vice versa, but there IS a difference, and it does matter.

"Because tell me - In Specifics - the artists that "matter".

You won't do it. Because it insults you, irritates you - the question itself is an affront to the priviledges of your perch."-shawn

I've given my opinion on artists that matter plenty of times. The question doesn't bother me a bit unless you're asking for a comprehensive list or trying to goad me into compromising my principles (like the above question where you asked my must-haves from pre-1980). But here's the thing: The best part about my criteria is that anyone can argue them. I don't have to tell you who "matters" because a thousand other people can do it for me, and provide reasoned, compelling arguments. I could care less about a simple difference of opinion if it is well-reasoned, but I like to think I can smell bullshit, and most people reek of it. Read a handful of random posts on this site from non-regulars and tell me that's "elitist."

"Epiphany is a common word that fit just fine there in describing an artist that appeared on the scene and in historical perspective manifested itself as something of a deity or essential paragon for a genre."-shawn

No, it wasn't. An epiphany is a sudden realization. It does not fit in the sentence at all in any context. And it's not being "nitpicky," I think, when it honestly grates on my nerves and I've tried to ignore it. The subtext remark is perfectly valid as well, and I explained why. You purportedly "meant" something that could in no way be intuited from what you said.

Posted by W on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 19:43pm

"You're beyond pathetic, Michael."

Wait, I thought I was anon, now I'm some guy named Michael?

"but there IS a difference, and it does matter."

100% agree

"No, it wasn't. An epiphany is a sudden realization. It does not fit in the sentence at all in any context."

Agreed too.

"I do not understand how MY name is blocked"

Do you really not understand?

Posted by Ryan on Saturday, 12.22.07 @ 20:17pm

"but I like to think I can smell bullshit, and most people reek of it." - W

Gimme an E! Gimme an L! Gimme an I! Gimme a T! Gimme an I! Gimme an S! Gimme a T!

ELITIST!!!!!

"it honestly grates on my nerves and I've tried to ignore it."

Please, William, just get over your self. Learn some humility, if only for your own sake.

Posted by L on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 04:10am

And Michael, stop trying to suck up.

Posted by L on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 04:12am

The cheerleader routine was lame the FIRST time. Now it's just annoying.

Once again, read some of the comments on here. Count up the number of good, well-reasoned arguments vs. the number of "omg i luv these guys they should get in cuz they rock!" See which you have more of at the end.

As George Carlin said: "Think of how dumb the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are dumber than that."

Posted by W on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 07:08am

I was not sucking up at all. On the contrary, I agreed with what he said, thats all, so I agreed. What should I have done? That expressi