Can't say that I have in a serious setting. One of my best friends has some serious guitar chops in the jazz realm. We've gotten together informally with a fake book and played some tunes. I used rudimentary walks all over the place. Especially in stuff that was 12 bar. Another thing I did was to play a repeating pattern on the I and IV chords, then walk the turnaround.
I actually practice walking a good bit. I record myself comping basic progressions, and try to lay down a line underneath. Fun stuff.
Quote: also where Trent Reznor (NIN) got his start. Tracy Chapman, Chrissy Hynde (Pretenders) The James Gang, the list goes on.
It really is fitting that The Hall be located where it is...
just sayin'
That's a valid point; however, to be totally fair, all of those artists are from Cleveland, so it seems pretty logical that they'd get their starts in Cleveland.
Actually they didn't. Chrissy and the James Gang were playing in Akron/Kent area long brfore they reached the dizzying heights of the Cleveland scene. Bowie and the other groups,simply played in Cleveland nothing more,nothing less. If Cleveland is the ideal location for theHall,than why are the induction ceremonies held in NYC?
In all fairness, when the Hall Of Fame was introduced, I don't think they took into consideration the controversy that would arise from their choice- based upon the narrowness of its Title: "R&R HOF."
By the very nature of who We are as a people, this designation was destined to create controversy. After all, we are a tribalistic bunch... and specific names in titles bring out the specificity of our nature.
To be honest, "Rock and Roll" means so many things to so many different people, it was almost a slam-dunk that each nomination would be fraught with dissention among rank and file fans.
For some, R&R is The Stones. For others, it's the Beatles. For some, it's acid rock. For yet another group, it's Rockabilly. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point already. To extend this thoughtline, it could be argued that Elvis Presley should be excluded from consideration, since the bulk of his adult ("Fat Vegas Elvis") career had him singing ballads and standards from 2 generations earlier. But to not nominate (and confirm) him for his early impact would be ludicrous.
IMHO, a name like "Popular Culture Music Hall Of Fame" would have been more fitting... since that's what it has evolved to be... and what (I suspect) it was always conceptualized to be.
By naming it as they did, they bring up in people all the same tribalistic tendencies that we see in the stereotypical 'political' threads here at DT... and all the predictable "my take/your take" discussions that come with it.
If we all consider the fact that the place was poorly-named (considering how the nature of its honorees have evolved), I'm sure many of us would agree that much of the 'stylistic nit-picking' in these conversations would disappear.
Dawgs- I've spent a lifetime studying music, in-depth, from The Renaissance to today... and the one thing I've found to be true is this:
Music, like cuisine is an amalgam of different flavors and takes, all influencing each other. Beethoven would have been nothing, if not for Mozart, who would have been nothing, if not for Bach, who would have been a small-time choirmaster and organist, if not for Gesualdo. The same is true for R&R.
So... if they want to induct someone like Miles Davis to The Hall, it's all good with me. He got his start playing in smoky Jazz dives with Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, but he also hooked up with smokin'-hot rock players to form an entirely new and unique genre: Fusion... which led the way to Funk, Disco, Hip-Hop, Trip-Hop, Acid Jazz, and a host of other genres.
From my humble POV, the controversy has never lain in the candidates or their qualifications. The controversy has always lain in the name of the damned place... and our need to define ourselves by what music really means to us... and therin 'lies the rub,' as they say.
Last week, I was stopped at an intersection behind a vehicle that sported a bumper sticker which read:
Quote: Hank is in as an "influential artist" I believe. I know he had an exhibit when I went a few years back. The fact that I can sit here in 2011 and play Cold Cold Heart for someone and have them go "WOW that's a good song" speaks to his ability. Along with the wealth of material by someone who left the Earth at 29.
You're right. I somehow missed that fact.
Good deal as far as I am concerned. I am a big Hank admirer.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Agreed Peen. When I picked up guitar those were the first songs I strummed along with. My dad gave me some Hank Sr 8-Tracks, and a guitar he saw someone sit out for the garbage man (a classical guitar, which I still have). He showed me the basic open chords, and what songs to use what chords with. At 12 years old I thought the songs were awful, but by the time I graduated High School, I realized how great they really were.
Clem, I find it fascinating how one composer would build off of another's achievements. My music history professor would aptly demonstrate this by picking out motifs that a composer would take from someone prior. The guy was nuts, but he also was a genius. Most people I had in the courses with the guy hated him, because he didn't just lay out bullet points. I spent many a night researching things that he mentioned in class.
I always felt strongly towards the relationship between blues and rock n roll. At one point I mapped several recordings of jump blues, and various recordings by black artists in the late 30s-54, and seriously considered studying the implications of racism on the development of Rock 'n Roll's evolution from blues for a masters' degree.
When I approached the above professor discussing it, he said "You are on to a little something. Unfortunately, most history professors are snots when it come that type of research. It's most definitely an idea worth pursuing, but you wont get much support from faculty at the collegiate level" He also said he was more than willing to help me, and pointed me toward what little had been written on the subject.
This song could pass for a Jerry Lee Lewis tune. The heavy shuffle in the left hand was a big part of his sound. It was recorded in 1938 though. There are a buncha other songs that could easily pass for mid 50's Rock n' Roll, Rocket 88, and The Fat Man both come to the top of my mind.
Been a bit long winded the past couple days. Sorry bout that
Quote: also where Trent Reznor (NIN) got his start. Tracy Chapman, Chrissy Hynde (Pretenders) The James Gang, the list goes on.
It really is fitting that The Hall be located where it is...
just sayin'
That's a valid point; however, to be totally fair, all of those artists are from Cleveland, so it seems pretty logical that they'd get their starts in Cleveland.
Actually they didn't. Chrissy and the James Gang were playing in Akron/Kent area long brfore they reached the dizzying heights of the Cleveland scene.
Ok, LeBron, you're right...Kent and Akron are worlds apart from Cleveland
Perhaps I should've said "all of those artists are from *the greater Cleveland area*, so it seems pretty logical that they'd get their *big time starts in Cleveland after playing the bar scenes in the college towns where they actually started, except that Akron isn't really a "college town" per se but you know what I'm getting at*.
Quote: That Divot poster said KISS had no talent and they were all pyro and explosions. I just replied and said if KISS didn't have the songs they wouldn't have made it this far. The members of KISS never claimed to be musically proficent or geniuses. Its irrelevant in terms of how simplistic KISS's songs are learn and play. anyone beginner playing bass or guitar,I would point them toward KISS's 1st 3 albums. Much like AC/DC. but strip away the stage show and costumes..Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons,Ace Frehley are good musicians. And as far as singers go,there aren't too many better than Paul Stanley.
"That Divot poster?" lol
Let's just pick one other so-so band. Yes, Paul Stanley is better than Steve Perry of Journey. And yes, the rest of the band are all virtuosos compared to Journey's line up of former members of Santana and Zappa. Why didn't I recognize all of this talent earlier? Good musicians, and one of the best vocalists, all in one neat pyrotechnic package.
Are you trying to inflate the value of your KISS memorabilia collection for resale on eBay?
In closing, I quote this intelligent bit of seminal insight: Its irrelevant in terms of how simplistic KISS's songs are learn and play. anyone beginner playing bass or guitar,I would point them toward KISS's 1st 3 albums.
In the end, the Hall of Fame is about "Fame", and KISS achieved a level of fame that should qualify them for the Hall. They are one of the most well known, and probably the single most recognizable band in all of rock and roll.
Not everyone who makes the hall is a virtuoso.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Can you name one other "famous" band with less talent? Didn't think so. Up and down the line there isn't one good musician.
I'll admit I'm a big REM fan. Are they musically talented? Not really, unless compared to KISS. Do they deserve HOF? No, but they're in.
Hall and Oates should be in before KISS. I don't think Yes is in the HOF, but I might be wrong. Start lobbying for musicians with a modicum of talent instead of "big" names that suck and I'll join the chorus.
Britney Spears before KISS, Lady Gaga before KISS, Christina Aguilara before KISS. Tiffany before KISS. They are all famous, and sold out more albums and concerts, right? The officially licensed KISS black (oh, yeah, it's black!) t-shirt wearing crowd is amazing. Now the bar for the HOF has been set to "yeah, they suck as musicians, but are popular among some and are famous." Please.
Lebron? Oh yeah I'd forgotten all about that guy. Played with Devo.Another band that got thier start in Cleveland. Years ago,I stumbled into a bar they were playing at.Let's just say the R&R Hall of Fame didn't enter into the any conversation the short time I was there.
I almost named my dog (Roscoe) "Devo", and then I remembered how much they and their one "hit" blew. Now, if you want to talk one-hit wonders, Steam has to get a mention. That "Na-Na-Hey-Hey-Goodbye" rocked. They even had a long version with a crazy-good drum solo.
People don't go to a Hall of Fame to see exhibits about bands and musicians they never heard of. They go to see the famous bands and musicians. They go to see the bands they know.
KISS belongs in because they are a hugely successful rock band. Are they the best rock band of all time? No. However, they have been hugely popular and successful, and without "stats" or "wins" or "championships" to count up like you would in other Halls of Fame, I would look to who were the most successful acts, and which were the most groundbreaking acts. On both ends, KISS deserves to go in, regardless of what you, I. or anyone else thinks of their musical ability.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Lebron? Oh yeah I'd forgotten all about that guy. Played with Devo.Another band that got thier start in Cleveland. Years ago,I stumbled into a bar they were playing at.Let's just say the R&R Hall of Fame didn't enter into the any conversation the short time I was there.
DEVO was formed to make music for their videos (music videos being pioneered by The Monkees, thus qualifying them for the HOF.)
They were really from Akron/Kent, and had a couple of hits. Whip It, Mongoloid, Girl You Want, and others. Mick Jaggar said their version of "Satisfaction" was the best he ever heard.
Hey, I'd love to see their costumes, or their pyrotechnic devices, or the giant hooker platform boots with snakes and stuff.
I'd also like to see the DEVO costumes. The early yellow suits with the name tags, the later flower pot hats.
Neither should be inducted as honorees.
You are confusing breaking ground with breaking wind. There is a difference. KISS broke ground in marketing, as I've admitted. Not pyrotechnics, make-up, costumes, music, hooker platform boots, lighting, or big arena shows. Just marketing to teenage boys. They belong in the marketing hall of fame.
I can't think of a crappier band I would argue should be inducted. Can someone please name another "famous" band with less talent?
Who doesn't belong?
1) The Beatles 2) The Rolling Stones 3) Led Zeppelin 4) KISS
You don't like their music. That's fine. Other people must, because they sold millions and millions and millions of albums. They're not my favorite band, neither are they my least favorite. I'll listen to one of their songs if it comes on without going into convulsions as it appears must happen to you. lol
Kiss was immensely popular for decades. They did things that no one had done before. To me that's a hall of fame career. It's too damn hard to try to objectively judge something purely subjective like music.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
As I've said, I don't hate them, I find them funny, and think they are marketing geniuses.
Now we go back to millions of albums (and never a Grammy), should Milly Vanilli be in the HOF? The goal-line keeps shifting.
I can't understand how someone wakes up one day and says "You know what, KISS belongs in the RnR HOF." Really? I mean really? There is no one else more deserving?
Then the defenders say "Yeah, they suck. But they sold a bunch of albums, and sold out concerts." I remember going into the record store in the 70's when KISS did the "4 solo albums all at once" thing. It broke the remainder album bin for years. The Four Sucktards.
"This band sucks musically but sold a bunch of albums and concerts to dopey teenage boys" is hardly a recommendation to the RnR HOF.
Tiffany, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilara, The Backstreet Boys, and Justin Bieber all have more talent and have similar sales. Should they be in? My answer is a resounding yes, before KISS.
That girl that sings "Friday" is the equivalent of KISS. "Hey, she had more downloads of that youtube than anyone, much like KISS attracted dopey teenage boys." HOF, baby! Forget it was all marketing. She changed the entire, uh, well, um, nevermind. She was even more popular and is as talented as KISS, and deserves the HOF due to popularity, right?
Let me guess, now you need longevity? The goal keeps moving - good musicians, great songs, innovation, etc. are now out for consideration. You tee it up, and I'll hit it out of the park.
KISS belongs in the HOF? Of all bands you think of KISS? Please. You should sue the rotten person that stabbed out your eardrums. I was in high school with a KISS fan; we felt sorry for him and gave him bananas.
can you prove that KISS has no talent? all you do is make is a statement that takes not alot of observation to make. "they have no talent" "they are all marketing". KISS makes no apologizes about they achived success. They took the concert experience to a whole new level. Ground breaking innovations and simple yet catchy songs. ask any fan of rock n roll/hard rock...how many REM songs do you know..how many KISS songs do you know? I've both bands live. REM was a total snooze fest..very bland and not really animated on stage. Micheal Stipe is one of the more boring front man I've seen live....Aaron Lewis of Stained is the worst. Plus the girls there weren't really too hot.
Many of the singers/bands you mentioned are not rock and roll acts. They are pop music acts.
If there is ever a pop music hall of fame, they are shoe ins.
KISS is not my favorite band by ant stretch, but they are not anywhere near as bad as you make them out to be. My biggest problem with them was the fact that every single song got overplayed to death.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
funny you say that..I was going thru the radio last night......FM radio has not changed it songs in 30 years.....
AC/DC....You Shook Me, Girls Got Rythym, Hells Bells Ted Nugent..Cat Scratch Fever..Free For All KISS..RNR All Nite Led Zepplin...Rock and Roll Edgar Winter..Frankenstein Van Halen..Jamie's Cryin..You Really Got Me.
classic rock radio is so so bad. 97.5..98.5..106.9.
any time of the day you can 1 of those songs on any classic rock station. thank god for Sirrus Radio.
Quote: can you prove that KISS has no talent? all you do is make is a statement that takes not alot of observation to make. "they have no talent" "they are all marketing". KISS makes no apologizes about they achived success. They took the concert experience to a whole new level. Ground breaking innovations and simple yet catchy songs. ask any fan of rock n roll/hard rock...how many REM songs do you know..how many KISS songs do you know? I've both bands live. REM was a total snooze fest..very bland and not really animated on stage. Micheal Stipe is one of the more boring front man I've seen live....Aaron Lewis of Stained is the worst. Plus the girls there weren't really too hot.
First you say I need to prove KISS has no talent, then you say KISS doesn't apologize for their lack of talent and the way they achieved success (I think; it's hard to tell for sure with all the missing verbs.) The youtube vid I posted earlier, according to you their finest work, was more than enough proof.
I agree with your opinion that it doesn't take a lot of observation to see KISS has no talent and is just marketing.
I said REM should not be in the HOF, although I am a fan. I know every REM song, and about a dozen KISS songs, off the top of my head.
KISS broke no new ground - not lighting, pyrotechnics, costumes, make-up, large arena/stadium shows - NOTHING! Not even the platform hooker boots that you find to be one of their rock and roll innovations. The only thing they took to a new level was marketing to pre-pubescent boys. And sucking.
It is spelled Staind, and at least they actually have girls at their concerts. KISS concerts are well known sausage fests.
You make it sound like it was so easy for KISS...boom all it takes is marketing. If it was that easy then everyone would be taking that route. KISS paid their dues. No other band toured and treked the USA as much has KISS did. they played towns that most bands wouldn't have dreamed of playing. REM is a band that found a niche and it worked. Did REM ever open for the B-52's? aren't they both from Georgia? I sure Micheal Stipe and Fred Schneider were close friends
One of the things I heard from a couple friends who work there said that one of the reasons they WON'T be inducted is because awhile back the rockhall asked Gene Simmons if they could display some of the band's artifacts to which Simmons replied..."sure, and we want a percentage of the admission cost." Needless to say the rockhall curators said no. Why do they need more money anyway? Besides, why would anyone want to induct a band who only does songs about partying and screwing underage girls? FWIW I'm glad they aren't inducted. Or more than likely won't be.
I love the R@RHOF. I pay an annual membership fee and never get tired of the place. If there was any flaws I would say letting rappers, Madonna, and ABBA get inducted and not more worthy bands like Grand Funk Railroad, Bachman Turner Overdrive, and the Guess Who. The entire blame for this should be laid at the feet of that idiot Jann Wenner. I highly doubt if he really gives a damn what we think anyhow. It's good to be the king, I suppose.
"My opinions and feelings are mine and shall not be influenced by anyone....especially liberals."
Quote: total snooze fest..very bland and not really animated on stage.
Please, please PUHLEEEEEZE don't get me started on this one.
I saw this "indictment" of a Steely Dan concert once, too.... and it left me shaking my head. "They were these old guys just singing with some horn players doing s[expletive]... they didn't even jump around or anything." Steely [freakkin'] Dan got panned because they did what musicians have done for hundreds of years... played their music and intruments at an extremely high level. God forbid they didn't haul they 60 yr old asses out there and start breakdancin'....
WTF does jumping around, diving off cabinets and spewing fire from one's mouth have to do with making music? Nothing. Nothing at all.... it's a show. Take of the leather, the make-up.... make'em plant & play... and you'll see what a snoozefest their MUSIC is... and that's where you and divot have a parting of the ways. In essence, the shage show MUST be over-the-top to compensate for the MUSIC being decidedly inferior. As far as ticket sales are concerned- folks lined up to see Barnum's side shows, too. He got very rich off all the rubes who came to see the bearded lady and the drooling 2-headed boy. I don't think any of them mistook a Barnum show for Shakespeare in the park.
Consideration MUST be given to musical contribution first and foremost, imho.... otherwise, what's the point? They can be innovators in stagecraft all they want, but turgid, base, repetitious product is always going to be a part of their mix... and if that's what's keeping them out, then no amount of gyrations, flashpots or pyros is ever going to compensate for that.
Great musicians can have stunning stage shows and still throw down a musically complex, artistically superior performance. Floyd's been doing it for 10 years longer than KISS. Genesis, Eagles, Hendrix Experience, Airplane, Skynard, Police... didn't need to hop around like epileptics with scorpions in their jocks or spit "great balls-o fire" to get their music into the souls of their audiences. Plant and play your music. Let your music get you into The Hall.
I guess you must first determine if R&R is a musical genre or entertainment medium before deciding to let in bands like KISS. If it's an entertainment medium, KISS would already be in. Apparently, the folks making the invites still think R&R a musical genre first.
Like I said in an earlier post, i thnik they probably will get in, eventually. If they are kept out, it WILL be because there was nothing innovative, imaginative or inimitable about the music they played... and that's a pretty big hurdle to clear despite 'unit sales' or concert cashflow generated.
It may come as a surprise to some people in this world, but sometimes "lots of money and big numbers" just isn't enough.
Quote: WTF does jumping around, diving off cabinets and spewing fire from one's mouth have to do with making music? Nothing. Nothing at all.... it's a show. Take of the leather, the make-up.... make'em plant & play... and you'll see what a snoozefest their MUSIC is...
You mean like this?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
yup. pretty much like that. Not really a lot going on (to my ears) without the props, lighting, make-up and FX.
I stand upon my original assertion.
Hey- It occurs to me that I should take a moment to clear up any potential misconceptions about my POV. I never once said that I had a problem with people liking KISS. Most of what I posted here was under the original question: "Why aren't they in The Hall?" My observations about them outline the reasons why I think they haven't been inducted.
I don't hate the band, and I really don't have an issue with their fans, either... I simply see them as a 2nd-tier band who found an effective marketing strategy and a core audience who likes their brand of show.
I've been accused of being a snob for making observations like these many, many times in my life, so I'm a bit used to it by now. Perhaps after all those years of having the "essential elements of well-crafted music" crammed down my throat I actually am. I do know that I can no longer listen to ANY music without analyzing the hell out of it... (structure, chordal progression, instrumentation, musicianship, you name it) and that analysis is tied directly to my level of enjoyment.
Just like people who have learned the intracacies of photography by studying the landscapes of Ansel Adams and the portraits of George Hurrell and Annie Leibowitz can't really enjoy snapshots of folks' friends at a party, I can't really get into music that only hits me on a basic level. Even as a kid, most rock seemed kind of uninteresting to me, no matter how loudly or energetically it was played. It took a really well-crafted and well-performed piece to capture my interest. As a result, I ended up liking specific songs from a lot of different bands/artists, but wasn't really what you'd call a fan of any.
That changed when I discovered ProgRock. ELP, Genesis, Floyd, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, PFM... they all had unique sounds, sophisticated architecture and superb craftsmanship, on top of being first-rate instrumentalists. THAT'S when I became a fanboy. To date, most current (and for that matter past) bands that are a commercial success just can't hold a candle to those guys.
Now I listen to Jazz, avant-garde, 'World music' (music from Asia, Middle East, Indonesia, etc) and extreme experimental music... anything that's going to show me something that hasn't been done 100K times before.
KISS: It won't effect me either way if they do or don't get inducted to The Hall. I just wanted to explain to posters who support them why I think they HAVEN'T been inducted to date. I don't really hate their music.... rather, I spent my time listening to others'
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was supporting what you'd said, and I thought that video was horrible.
As far as Kiss being in the HOF, I definitely think they should be, but not for their musical talent. The way I see it (as someone else here pointed out), it's a hall of fame . Kiss has been recognized worldwide for over 30 years, continually selling out stadiums and selling millions of albums....and their brand is still going strong. Like them or not, they've played a major role in the world of RnR. It wasn't all marketing hype, either. They worked their way up. They actually played at the Valentine theater in Ttown a couple times in the mid 70's when they made their small club rounds. (A couple other famous stops in Toledo: Jimi Hendrix backed up The Monkeys in the old UT fieldhouse, and Led Zepplin backed up Vanilla Fudge at the Sports Arena).
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: You make it sound like it was so easy for KISS...boom all it takes is marketing. If it was that easy then everyone would be taking that route. KISS paid their dues. No other band toured and treked the USA as much has KISS did. they played towns that most bands wouldn't have dreamed of playing. REM is a band that found a niche and it worked. Did REM ever open for the B-52's? aren't they both from Georgia? I sure Micheal Stipe and Fred Schneider were close friends
I'll address each point if you attempt to find your Enter key. It's on the right side of the keyboard.
I will contact the manager of Backstreet Boys to inform him of a way to use marketing to make a crappy band financially successful. The Backstreet Boys should be in the HOF (ahead of KISS.)
I've said REM should not be in the HOF three times now, unless it would keep out KISS.
No, REM never opened for The B52's. The B-52s started in the 70s. I think The Plastics opened for them on some early tours. The B52's played some small venues after that, without opening acts. REM came later in the 80s. (Ironically, The Plastics covered The Monkees, but never KISS.)
Yes, they are both from Athens, GA. Michael Stipe is gay, and Ricky Williams of the B-52s was gay. Not sure if Fred is gay. They were all friends, being from a small town with a close community. I say "were" because Ricky died of AIDS.
I get the thinly veiled gay insult. You may have serious issues that need addressing.
Quote: No other band toured and treked the USA as much has KISS did. they played towns that most bands wouldn't have dreamed of playing.
You are delusional. See early years of above mentioned REM as just one example. Again, I am an REM fan and believe they should not be in the HOF, unless the other option is KISS. There are dozens, no hundreds of bands that toured longer and played crappy towns, before and after. Another KISS myth busted.
What else do you have, other than gay-bashing and delusions of non-existent innovations? You're left with some crappy, er "catchy" songs. The Monkees did that, too, and belong in the HOF before KISS. At least The Monkees pioneered the modern music video with songs that are actually catchy.
You should write out "KISS pioneered nothing" with your officially licensed KISS pencil on a piece of officially licensed KISS note-paper and put it in your officially licensed KISS trapper-keeper to keep in your officially licensed KISS backpack.
There was one kid in my high school that was a KISS fan. We felt sorry for him and gave him bananas.
Your point is made. Why the need to put someone in their place with a hammer and stake? Personal tastes differ; let it go. Like Grace Slick said, "It's Only Music".
I personally don't care if Kiss ever gets in or not, just feel based on the merits the HoF puts out as the criteria, Kiss meets them, even though some may be based on relative musical tastes. I think REM sucks but I appreciate their accomplishments and their place and influences in music of the time.
I never understood the need to be in the HoF or the award shows for music. As a musician, the only acceptance I ever wanted and needed was the people who came to see us, having a good time, enjoying themselves. I never played to win awards or be recognized by some useless organization. Sure RnR fame and money would have been nice, but even so I never gave a rat's behind about the recognition parties that excluded the people who actually bought tickets and albums.
One of my biggest gripes with the RnR HoF is it's lack of true definition of RnR. It really should just be called the Music Hall of Fame.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
I have no issues. People can be how they want to be..everyone is a individual.
as far as the Monkees...they weren't the pioneers of music video. That belongs to the Beatles...with "A Hard Days Night" and "Help" The Monkees TV show was a American attempt to what the Beatles done years before and the Monkees failed. To say the Monkees impacted music more than KISS is pretty laughable. Talk about a band that came and went. how many gold albums did the Monkees achieve? everyone figured out the Monkees were a gimmick. you talk about how KISS was all marketing....what do you think a music video is? Its a marketing tool. you should never feel sorry for a kid because he likes a band. its his own right and freedom to express himself
One of the things I heard from a couple friends who work there said that one of the reasons they WON'T be inducted is because awhile back the rockhall asked Gene Simmons if they could display some of the band's artifacts to which Simmons replied..."sure, and we want a percentage of the admission cost." Needless to say the rockhall curators said no.
I have doubts about that.. Who decides who goes in the HOF?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I remember my dad telling me this years ago. "If it's a good song you can play it on acoustic and it doesn't lose anything" Sure it's not the end all be all, but it is a good barometer of how good of a composition the writers threw together.
Forgive me for using them as an example again, but even at the height of the Beatles' Psychedelic phase their stuff all works well with just an acoustic guitar. Beneath all the gimmicks there was still a good tune there. I think that's some of my problem with 80s music, you take away the technology and it seems to lose it's effect, because they arent good compositions at the base. KISS looks to fall in that camp...to my ears at least.
Quote: Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was supporting what you'd said, and I thought that video was horrible.
Thanks for the clarification, jfan.
It wasn't easy to know your intent. I've been making noise for 4/5 of my life, and am continually amazed at what other folks think is great. I wasn't sure which side of the fence you fell on, so I went ahead and posted up an honest reply.
Dawg... it's a HUGE relief to know we saw that video hrough the same set of eyes/ears. A very tepid performanc of a not-so-great R&R tune, most definitely.
Quote: Heaven's On Fire is a very average song and it really sounds dated. But it was popular song for its time but its way past its prime
Which is the point some of us have been trying to make with you, Mr. Storm.
A well-crafted song will stand the test of time, and maintain relevance in any decade, to any age group. Case in point: take ANY tune from Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon"...any song, and play it now. It's still as fresh and relevant today as it was in 1973! That album is almost 40 years old, and is still selling in the top echelon today. Here's some data from Wikipedia... it will blow your mind:
Quote: "The Dark Side of the Moon became one of the best-selling albums of all time,[88] (not counting compilations and various artists soundtracks), and is in the top 25 of a list of best-selling albums in the United States.[47][89] Although it held the number one spot in the US for only a week, it remained in the Billboard album chart for 741 weeks.[90] The album re-appeared on the Billboard charts with the introduction of the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart in May 1991, and has been a perennial feature since then.[91] In the UK it is the sixth-best-selling album of all time.[92]"
In the US the LP was released before the introduction of platinum awards on 1 January 1976. It therefore held only a gold disc until 16 February 1990, when it was certified 11× platinum. On 4 June 1998 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the album 15× platinum,[47] denoting sales of fifteen million in the United States—making it their biggest-selling work there (The Wall is 23× platinum, but as a double album this signifies sales of 11.5 million).[93] "Money" has sold well as a single, and as with "Time", remains a radio favourite; in the US, for the year ending 20 April 2005, "Time" was played on 13,723 occasions, and "Money" on 13,731 occasions.[nb 9] Industry sources suggest that worldwide sales of the album total about 45 million. [94] "On a slow week" between 8,000 and 9,000 copies are sold,[88] and a total of 400,000 were sold in 2002, making it the 200th-best-selling album of that year—nearly three decades after its initial release. According to a 2 August 2006 Wall Street Journal article, although the album was released in 1973, it has sold 7.7 million copies since 1991 in the US alone. [95] To this day, it occupies a prominent spot on Billboard's Pop Catalogue Chart. It reached number one when the 2003 hybrid CD/SACD edition was released and sold 800,000 copies in the US.[47] On the week of 5 May 2006 The Dark Side of the Moon achieved a combined total of 1,500 weeks on the Billboard 200 and Pop Catalogue charts. [61] One in every fourteen people in the US under the age of 50 is estimated to own, or to have owned, a copy .[47] To date, it is the most successful album in New Zealand, as a total, it had stayed in the charts for a total of 289 weeks, becoming RIANZ's best-selling album of all time.[96][97]"
um, that's a classic, son.
Let's not even talk about "Heaven's on Fire" for a minute. Take any of KISS's strongest tunes. Take any of their strongest albums. Listen.... really listen to them. Then put on DSOTM. Or Eagles' Hotel California. Or Beatles' White Album. Listen for compositional content. Listen for musicianship. Listen for lyrical content. Listen for structure/architecture of the piece- the writing. Listen for artistry... do the guitar solos have substance? I think once you try this little excercise, you'll see what others have been trying to tell you.
Dawg.... if bands like KISS aren't in the HoF, they can blame groups like Floyd and the others I mentioned- for setting the bar so freakkin' high.
Look- they're an easily digestible party band, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there ARE reasons that their road to the HoF hasn't been an easy one... and the artistic quality of their total body of work is one of the big ones.
Quote: Case in point: take ANY tune from Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon"...any song, and play it now. It's still as fresh and relevant today as it was in 1973!
Except "Money"...man, that song is out of place on DSOTM. Easily my least favorite track on the album.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
Besides, why would anyone want to induct a band who only does songs about partying and screwing underage girls? FWIW I'm glad they aren't inducted. Or more than likely won't be. 
