B5Erik: It's this idea of the elitist snob that bothers me. Because some people don't like what you like, you pigeonhole them. Did you ever think that someone who has to listen to music critically 10 hours a day might ask more from their records someone who listens solely for enjoyment? And how do you define a elitist snob band and a people's band? You certainly can't do it by their music. If the Stooges had had one big hit you'd be calling them a people's band, but since they didn't you would call them an elitist snob band when there's absolutely nothing elitist about them.

Stepping in very carefully...

I used sports halls of fame as a way of evaluating this question. With sports, there is generally an objective basis for evaluating candidates -- statistics. Now, people may debate whether one set of statistics should be given more primacy than another set (e.g., offensive vs. defensive statistics, individual statistics vs. success of teams the player played on), but at least they're arguing over the same metric.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has no such equivalent metric. Heck, as far as I know, they're the only art that has attempted to honor lifetime achievement (with the exception, I suppose, of the Nobel Prize for Literature) as opposed to yearly achievement. So, what is "rock and roll?" Do artists have to be heard in America? Have to sing in English? Have to sing at all? Is it just recorded music, or does live music count, too? How long of a career do artists need to have?

In the end, it seems like you either make your choices based on "popular success," judged solely on album sales and concert receipts, or by some critical judgment. Personally, I come down on the side of critical judgment.

I don't think it's the role of the Hall of Fame to let the public know about undiscovered artists, but if that happens, fine.

For what it's worth, B5Erik, you've convinced me somewhat that KISS shouldn't be dismissed entirely as a Hall of Fame candidate.

As a final suggestion, maybe the Hall should do what baseball's Hall of Fame does -- allow the players to vote in players whose 15-year eligibility for the Hall has expired. If KISS really was a big influence, then they might get in that way, if not through the regular process....

Yancey, look, some of the artists that you named are not as "accessable" as some of the bands that I'm saying should be in the Hall. So their appeal was more limited - that doesn't mean that they weren't great bands.

And if someone who listens to music "critically" 10 hours a day loses the ability to recognize good fun music, or good entertaining music, then that person can't relate to the average Rock and Roll fan - and that person's opinions and tastes when it comes to music are different than that of the general public. So who is the Hall for? The critics, or the fans & bands?

You keep dancing around my point - WHY CAN'T THE HALL BE REFLECTIVE OF ALL TYPES OF ROCK AND ROLL?

They seem to put "token" Hard Rock bands in (Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC), but the vast majority leans towards the artsy side of Rock.

Isn't there a place in the Hall for the Talking Heads AND KISS? Both bands were very successful at what they did, and both bands have withstood the test of time (although KISS had a much longer career). The same could be true of Sabbath, Purple, Alice Cooper, etc.

THAT'S why I come down on the "elitist snobs," because of their arrogance in belittling anything that they don't like. Their attitude seems to be that the fans of these bands are too stupid to know good music, so the success of these bands doesn't count. THAT is my problem with the "elitist snobs."

Again, you (and others on this board) have said that KISS, Purple, Alice Cooper, etc don't belong in simply because you don't like them. Isn't that arrogant? I never said your choices for the Hall don't belong in - because most of them do. I'm for a wider range of bands going into the Hall - reflective of the ENTIRE world of Rock and Roll, provided that each band being inducted had a major impact over a great length of time (flash in the pan artists, for the most part, do NOT belong in the Hall Of Fame).

(And, for the record, I don't think I was the first one on this thread to use the term, "elitist snob," I picked up on it from someone else and ran with it.")

I just don't get why you and some others want to shut out a very large and successful part of Rock and Roll history from the Hall Of Fame....

SAShepherd - You touched on a couple things that I was saying earlier.

Is the nomination process based on success in the U.S. - or based on worldwide success. If you ask me, it should be based on worldwide success just as much as success in the U.S.

If you take worldwide success into account, then a whole bunch of bands, including Thin Lizzy, UFO, Deep Purple, etc should go in. They were all VERY influential on Hard Rock and Heavy Metal, and were all successful in Europe, Japan, and Australia for 15+ years (some for over 25+ years). They all had success in the U.S. too, although not as much, and not for as long (with the exception of Deep Purple, who maintained U.S. popularity for 20+ years).

Musical quality is EXTREMELY hard to quantify. How good a band is is merely a matter of opinion. It's TOO subjective to be the sole reason to put a band in the Hall Of Fame, or to leave a band out.

The Rock Hall should be for all of those things. It should be for people who love music -- which includes fans, bands and critics. But I don't see why you are placing so much emphasis on critics. The voters for the Rock Hall are label folks, critics and artists. And then the end decision ends up being made by the four people who founded the Rock Hall -- three label heads and Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner. Artists from Sire and Atlantic are disproportionately represented in the Hall because their label heads (Seymour Stein and Ahmet Erghun, respectively) make the final decision on who makes it or not. In fact, many have said that these four people don't even pay attention to who the voters pick. Personally I'm not too uncomfortable with their decision making -- mainly because, aside from Wenner, these are people who really did shape rock and roll. The importance of Erghun and Jerry Wexler cannot be underestimated in rock history.




Of course the Rock Hall should reflect all types of rock. It will. It does. And you call Aerosmith, Zeppelin and AC/DC token bands? I would call them the leaders of the movement. It would be like calling the Beatles, Stones and Dave Clarke Five token British Invasion bands and then complaining that the Creation aren't in.

I think your perception that the Rock Hall is all artsy is wrong. I would suggest flipping through the roster.

Point out to me where I said that Kiss, Deep Purple and Alice Cooper don't belong because I don't like them. I never said that I disliked any of these bands. I just think that their importance is negligable. You've sparred with me over this and Kiss, and I appreciate you laying out why you think I'm wrong, but I still disagree. Kiss has more in common with the pop acts of today that you and anglagard despise so much than with other '70s hard rock acts. Kiss were a money making venture, no doubt about it. Kiss was a brand, not a band. And tell me this -- would Kiss have sold 70 million albums if they didn't wear makeup?

Would KISS have sold 70 million albums without make-up? Who knows.

I'll tell you this - they got signed because of their MUSIC. Casablanca owner/president Neil Bogart heard their demo tape and loved it. He signed them without even seeing a single picture or seeing them live. In fact, when he first saw the make-up he BEGGED them to drop it.

The make-up was a huge distraction for the critics, who got so caught up in the image that they couldn't recognize that KISS actually had some damn good Rock and Metal songs. A LOT of them.

But, regardless - you can't sell 70 million albums over 25 years based solely on a visual image. You might pull it off for an album or two, but that's it. Fans aren't THAT stupid.

And maybe "artsy" wasn't the right term (although "artsy" bands have a much better chance of getting in than Hard Rock and Metal bands).

Zep and AC/DC are great bands, but Aerosmith has been such a horrible sell-out band over the last 15 years that I can't take them seriously anymore. The last TRULY great album Aerosmith did was Rock In A Hard Place from 1982. But they're popular with the right people, so they're in.

I'll tell you this, I'll take ANY KISS album over ANY post 1982 Aerosmith album, and I was never big on Draw The Line, either. But Aerosmith is still a worthy band for the Hall Of Fame regardless of MY opinion. Let's face it, they've been hugely successful over a 30 year span, so it's hard to argue against them.

Here's another band that deserves to be inducted once they're eligible - but one that will never get in: IRON MAIDEN.

HUGELY successful worldwide - and HUGELY successful in the U.S. for about 10 years. (How many bands could sell out 4 shows on 4 consecutive nights at the Long Beach Arena? Not many, but Iron Maiden did it in 1985. They also sold out 7 consecutive shows at the Radio City Music Hall on the same tour. That tour, the "World Slavery Tour" was one of the most successful - and longest - tours in Rock and Roll history, and they had several other tours nearly that successful.) They have had 12 albums in the top 10 in the U.K. - 9 of them in the top 3. In the U.S. they've had 6 Platinum and 10 Gold albums.

Iron Maiden was also the most influential Metal band since Black Sabbath.

So, those are clearly HOF credentials - but they'll never get in. Even though a majority of Metal fans pick Iron Maiden as the BEST HEAVY METAL BAND OF ALL TIME, they will never get in.

And that, along with the snubbing of KISS, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc, is why the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame is a sham.

KISS should be in
Deep Purple No
Black Sabbath Yes
Lynyrd Yes
Alice Cooper Maybe
Thin Lizzy No
Rush Yes
The Police HUGE YES
Abba Yes