cdollaz

No, let me explain it for you. What is fucking stupid is that someone thinks that the reason that some of us do not agree with Madonna being in the HOF has anything to do with her age or sex.

MadonnasManOne

Actually, I knew the way you meant it. I just turned it around.

Also, just so it's known, I'm not saying that you, or anyone in particular on this forum, do not want Madonna inducted because of her age or sex. It's an attitude that does exist in the world of music, as nothingfails stated in his/her response, and in the business world. I didn't mean for that statement to apply to people who don't want Madonna inducted, at least from what I've seen in this thread. I understand that many who are arguing against her induction, as far as this thread is concerned, are doing so because they don't see her as being "rock and roll". However, as has been stated, she is just as deserving as others in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, because, although her music is considered as pop/dance, she has officially been catagorized in the pop/rock catagory, as defined by the music industry. That's why I think it's ridiculous that people are arguing against her induction, because she clearly has music that is defined under the definition of "rock and roll".

nothingfails

if Madonna doesn't belong into the HOF because she isn't hard rock enough for your liking, then I argue we should strip these HOF inductees as well who were not rock but rose to prominence after the British Invasion (since people argue the reason early soul and blues acts are in was because they paved the way for The Beatles and Stones.... okay, so once the Stones and Beatles were in there, then ensuing blues and soul acts are irrelevant, correct?)

Al Green (gifted? yes. Rock? hell no)
The Bee Gees
Bobby Darin (I don't see anything "rock" about Beyond The Sea or Mack The Knife)
Brenda Lee (after all, she was COUNTRY)
Dusty Springfield
Earth, Wind And Fire
Etta James (what's rock about "At Last"?)
The Four Seasons
The Four Tops
Gladys Knight And The Pipes
Grandmaster Flash
Isaac Hayes
James Taylor
Michael Jackson
O'Jays
Percy Sledge
Platters
Righteous Brothers
Ronettes
Supremes
Temptations

none of those artists I would at all classify as rock. The majority of them are r&b/soul artists, a few others are pop to the core and a few others are jazz/standards whatever. I like a lot of the artists listed above, but if Madonna doesn't merit a place in the Hall Of Fame because she doesn't conform to your "rock is Zeppelin, rock is AC/DC" mentality, than neither do any of the aforementioned. Seriously, Percy Sledge had one hit song and he's in the HOF.

Let's face it, most of you just hate admitting you were wrong in 1985 when you thought Madonna would be forgotten by 1987 and that in 2008 we'd be inducting Cyndi Lauper instead.

nothingfails

to be honest tho. While I do believe Madonna has earned her place in the HOF. I actually do think that there should be a sixth slot every year that the fans vote in, therefore groups like Rush and Chicago and others would get their rightful HOF induction. After all, critics may sway opinions in one direction or the other but it's the fans who have made these artists what they are, not the critics

dolphinboy

I will always love Madonna despite her larger than world-sized ego, but this is a pretty stupid debate. It's as obvious that she belongs as it is that many of the bands listed not already getting in is disgraceful.

Besides, does Madonna care? In her mind, she's the best thing to ever happen to music in her generation and probably couldn't care less what hall inducts he. Her only enjoyment that night will be having someone "big" in the business spend 45 minutes or so reminding all of us and all of those attending why Madonna is so great.

I wonder who she'll choose.

Giantrobo

1. I'm not kidding myself.
2. I don't have a problem with Madonna being put in. I'm neutral on the issue since I don't give a fuck about the RRHOF.
3. There may be some bands being influenced by Madonna and MJ. But i doubt it's anywhere near the level of influence the Black artists of the 50's and '60's had on White Rock bands. They weren't stealing from Black artists just for shit and giggles back then.

LiquidSky

I like Madonna but feel that someone like Joan Jett who TRULY rocks out on the guitar should have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame first.

LiquidSky

I agree. Paris Hilton, Ashlee Simpson, et al. get major deals while truly talented folks like Beth Ditto (from The Gossip) remain more obscure.

Giantrobo

ChristopherS

As a pop fan none of that would bother me at all. Pop=popular, and all of those acts are well known.
Is the R&R HOF an actual museum people can go to? If so, I would imagine they don't want to stick to "OMG the person has to play guitar and have a fan base with a stick up their ass" and that sort of stuff, to appeal to a wider audience. Children of the 80's will want to see Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson represented. Yes, I know, they should have just made it a pop hall of fame then. Wah-wah. But it's all in how you want to look at it, and what you feel like whining about today. Here the debate is Madonna isn't R&R, while at other message boards you may find a topic asking why all the white noms were inducted and the black ones shut out (including Donna Summer, who paved the way for Madonna- and is even less R&R- but had she got in, no one would have even noticed and debated it).

cyberguy13

First I have to say, great debate so far. Most people are being very rational and intelligent. Nice.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. The only issue in my mind is whether she should get in before some others on that impressive list that was provided. Disclaimer: I am not much of a pop music fan, though who hasn't liked some pop tunes now and then. My favorite band of all time is Soundgarden.

Anyway, I concluded that Madonna does in fact belong in the HOF regardless of whether she gets in before others who are very deserving. Its not her fault. However, she is simply too huge to ignore. She has had an enormous influence on all forms of music since her debut. From Kurt Cobain to Tori Amos to Kelly Clarkson to my own hero Chris Cornell to Liz Phair to the bottom rung of Britney and Christina, all have admitted being influenced by Madonna's music. No one has been bigger in music in the last 25 years than Madonna. While some people/bands have had an impact and should have been given their due with at least a nod in the HOF, Madonna's impact has been just astronomical worldwide. No one has come close.

I admit I hated Madonna when she first emerged. She seemed very manufactured and wayyyy too pop-ish. Then I heard Live To Tell and my opinion was shattered. Damn it, she had something! I had to admit it. I had the( now misfortune but that is neither here nor there) of dating a girl who was a Madonna fanatic. In the process, I actually heard the whole Like A Prayer album. Its simply stunning( listen to the album tracks, not the mainstream hits released). The woman knows her way around a melody, song structure, lyrics. It was risky, more out of the mainstream than most non-fans realize. Then there was Ray of Light and I was sold on Madonna.

And pop is a sub-genre of rock. Madonna has had many rock songs( Like A Prayer is many parts rock) and Ray of Light is very edgy, rockish. No matter, pop is rock. She is also a much better guitar player now( much improved over the dreck I googled from 2001). I also discovered she WAS a guitar player and drummer in her early days.

Madonna has also remained more cutting edge and daring during her tenure. She is the only mainstream artist that pushes herself and her music and music in general. Ray of Light was very daring and very influential. I have to give her props for that. Her music doesn't bore me and I can find substance there were in most mainstream music ( especially now) is fairly vapid.

I do agree others should have gotten in long ago. I would like to see the Hall have a very select few in anyway. The big ones, the pioneers, the record-breakers, the influencers, the trailblazers. IMO, Madonna fits that mold.

cdollaz

Umm, just for starters:

nothingfails

excellent analysis and review. Nice to see one rock fan who isn't a "if it doesn't rock like Metallica, it sucks" type. You admit you're a rock fan first but that you actually gave Madonna enough of a chance beyond the hit singles (a lot of non-fans don't realize that many of Madonna's best songs were never released as singles, she can get away with performing a song like Sky Fits Heaven or Paradise in concert nearly a decade after the fact and all the fans love hearing them) to realize that you cannot compare her with someone like Britney simply because she's a female who sang a lot of dance-pop hits. You are able to realize that there is a deeper undercurrent flowing in a lot of Madonna's material. Unlike most "pop stars", her albums actually are meant to stand apart and that's why no two Madonna albums are the same (even though Music did have a bit of a "Ray Of Light Pt. 2" vibe, but not too much), compare this to someone like Mariah or Celine whose albums are interchangable and take very few risks with their albums because they don't want to tamper with a proven formula. If the only Madonna album you have is The Immaculate Collection, you're never going to get it. Thank you for that intelligent post proving that you actually looked past the singles and realized Madonna is much deeper than the songs you've heard on the radio.

nothingfails

I love U2, they're great, they certainly deserved their induction in the HOF. But... in a way you can't really compare them. If you're going solely on an album sales/ticket sales basis, Madonna is arguably bigger than them.

cyberguy13

Hey, no doubt U2 is huge bro! There are a ton of artists whose impact over the last 25 years is enormous but Madonna seems to be on a whole nother level. Its all good though!

cyberguy13

I have to say though, it wasn't until Ray of Light that it really sealed the deal for me regarding Madonna. Sky Fits Heaven is indeed a killer track. Mer Girl is wicked though! She simply blew me away with that record. I opened up a bit more to her after the overexposed Sex era. Erotica is another gem of a record.

I can't pretend to be the biggest fan of hers. I don't know much indepth of her recent work though American Life was really really folk rock. I was surprised. I thought it would be more electronica.

I think most people just had a very negative first impression of her. Taking the time to dig deeper, she is really more out of the mainstream musically than most people realize. Its just the hits they hear, nothing else. Even some of her hits have been very un-radio friendly( Live to Tell was starkly different from both her previous work and what was on radio at the time). She is risky, ballsy and most of all, artistic. She has genuine artistic merit I can't ignore. I tried though. Really really hard! LOL

I don't understand the sometimes deep hatred she engenders from some elements. But I have never seen a woman in any field quite as ballsy and unrepenent as she( aside from Eleanor Roosevelt, but that was wayyyy before my time). Maybe that rackles many males. She kicked ass and took names. Then kicked their ass again for good measure. On a side note, she still looks fine as hell! The concert on TV last Thanksgiving I think (from London) in the leotard, strutting down the walkway. I nearly fell off the coach! Those legs! That body! Dayum!

Anyway, she gets my respect.

B5Erik

Again, my problem isn't so much Madonna getting in (although I wouldn't have voted for her), it's that she got in before legendary or important ROCK bands who were making albums 10-15 years before she came on the scene.

My main problem, though, with the R&RHOF is that Jann Wenner is using his bully pulpit to keep deserving bands out because HE doesn't like them. That's utter bullcrap.

cdollaz

If that is how it works, then yeah, the whole thing is a sham.

nodeerforamonth

I don't consider Madonna "rock" and/or "roll", so I don't think she should be in.

Same reason why I think the Hard Rock Cafe shouldn't have Beatles or Madonna memoribilia in their restaurants/stores. The Beatles were not "HARD" rock. They were rock 'n roll. The "Hard" Rock Cafe should only have "hard rock" artists in it. Or they should change their name to the "Rock Cafe" or "Music Cafe".

But that's just me. I'm a literal person and I don't like people changing definitions of words. There's a bar around me that has a sign that says "No Loitering In Or Around The Premises". How do they have any customers? Isn't that what people do in a bar? Loiter? Why are smokers smoking outside the bar? I don't get it. They should either remove the sign or not have any people hanging out inside or out.

cdollaz

The Hard Rock Cafe is someone's restaurant, not an avenue for honoring excellence in a certain area, so they can name it whatever the hell they want as far as I'm concerned.

Chrisedge

Please explain how Madonna is bigger than U2?

Album Sales?
Concert Revenue?
Merchandise Sales?
Fan Base?

slymer

I have no problem with Madonna making the RnR HOF. She's got a ton of great songs. That being said, the RnR HOF is a joke.

db27

The place is cool, but should just simply be a music museum nothing more. Music genres have become a joke at this point, and very few artists fit into one model. Madonna is enormously important to the music industry, and she deserves to be recognized as such but the system is flawed, and many of you have pointed out why. To me, the lists posted that show who has and who has not been selected prove that.

Chrisedge

U2 2001 Tour = $109.7M
Madonna 2001 Tour = $75M

U2 2005/2006 Tour = $212M
Madonna Tour = $193.7

Now I know Madonna has more than half the number of shows, but at more than twice the average ticket price. I doubt Madonna could do a huge 120+ date tour like U2 can.

U2 Tops Billboard's Money Makers Chart
January 20, 2006, 11:10 AM ET

With $255,022,633.35, U2 reigns supreme on Billboard's inaugural Money Makers chart, which brings together Nielsen Music data and the magazine's Boxscore numbers to create a master top 20 chart of acts that generated the most income during 2005. The list includes album and digital sales as well as accumulated box-office receipts. U2 ranked 27th in album sales, ninth in digital sales and No. 1 at the box office. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/searc..._id=1001882362

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/2043557.stm
Top music earners of 2001
1. U2 - $61.9m
2. Dr Dre - $51.9m
3. The Beatles - $47.9m
4. The Dave Matthews Band - $43.4m
5. Madonna - $40.8m

Madonna did do a 2004 Tour as well that grossed $125M as well. Madonna tours less, charges WAY more per ticket and comes up short.

Albums:

Boy 3m
October 3m
War 8m
UABRS 8m
Unforgettable Fire 8m
WAIA 2m
Joshua Tree 25m
Rattle & Hum 14m
Achtung Baby 17m
Zooropa 8m
Pop 6m
Best of 1980-90 16m*
ATYCLB 12m
Best of 1990-00 5m*
HTDAAB 9m
Total = 123M without the GH records or 144 million with.

Madonna 9M
Like a Virgin 19M
True Blue 20M
Like a Prayer 13M
Erotica 6M
Bedtime Stories 7M
Ray of Light 15M
Music 12M
American Life 4M
Confessions on a Dance Floor 8M
You Can Dance 6M
The Immaculate Collection 25M
Something to Remember 9M
GHV2 7M
Remixed & Revisited 1M
Total = 94 Million without GH or 142M with GH/Remixes

nothingfails

I grew up in the 80's, just in time to experience and enjoy both Madonna and U2's explosions in popularity. U2 has always been huge, but Madonna had this larger than life personality and presence. In the past 25 years, only Michael Jackson has seen the same sort of iconic domination.

U2 have been consistantly huge for over 20 years (barring the "slump" they had with Pop, but who hasn't had a slump at one time or the others), but I don't think Bono has ever ever had the Elvis-ish larger than life presence that Madonna had in the 80's and 90's. When Madonna would have a world premiere video, it was an event that was advertised for weeks. She could be away for a year and people would still be talking her. OTOH, I remember when U2 came back in late 91, it was treated as a "comeback" to a lot of people since so many people had forgotten them during the 2 or so years they stayed quiet after the Rattle And Hum era ran its course.

All in all, I really think it depends on what age and style of music you're more on. While I love rock, I am a bigger pop fan (and I don't mean Britney, etc...), and while I've followed U2 since 1987 and bought every album they've put out, to me they have never been as "huge" as Madonna was pretty much in the 80's and 90's when her sneezing would get the worlds attention. That said, I do believe U2 is one of the most important bands to emerge in the past 30 years and they deserved getting in first year eligible, much like Madonna does.