Gerry P.

That's not true. Chic was equal parts Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards.
Some people just can't get beyond the makeup.

zombeaner

Then nominate Rodgers and his ridiculous hair. A person's success outside of their band has no bearing on the relevance of the band's worthiness. We should then be nominating Exodus because Kirk Hammett went on to great things in Metallica.

Sean O'Hara

They could delve deeper into their vaults and find some Velvet Undgerground, The MC5, The Sonics, Frijid Pink, Link Wray, Stooges, Brian Eno, Meat Loaf, Nick Drake-- there's tons of great classic rock that never gets played on the radio.

nothingfails

exactly. So many people find classic rock boring just because they only play the same tired songs. There are so many unplayed artists that classic rock stations could still be exclusively pre-1981 (MTV) and people wouldn't complain about it. It's only because they won't play anything besides Eagles, Skynyrd, Zeppelin, etc... that people find Classic Rock so dull

B5Erik

I did a Classic Rock internet show for a few months a couple years back and I played songs from the big bands (Zep, Purple, Stones, etc), but I played deeper album cuts, and then I played songs from lesser known 70's bands (Legs Diamond, Starz, etc) that had really good songs that fit the format.

By playing songs from the lesser known, but really good, bands from the 70's it would almost be like playing new material for a lot of classic rock fans - giving the format new life.

But program & music directors for most stations get their material from a central programmer (ie: Clear Channel's main office). Why an independent station playing classic rock wouldn't do it is beyond me.

rw2516

You listen to classic rock stations and you think all they have on hand are best of cds. Maybe when then switched from vinyl to cd they just ran out and got greatest hits cds instead of replacing the main albums. It is pretty boring and repetitive. There was a time though, when everyone was still recording on a regular basis and all this stuff was new that it sounded pretty good. In 1978 you would hear Running With The Devil, Miss You, Hot Blooded, Blue Collar Man, Time For Me To Fly, Fat Bottom Girls, etc. several times a day, but it was all brand new and sounded great. So much new stuff was being released that older songs got a lot less airplay. Around the mid nineties they stopped concentrating on new releases and just playing existing releases into the ground. A lot of what is so tired sounding are actually album cuts, not charting hits.
Is Beaker Street(or is it Beeker?) stiil around? KAAY Little Rock, Arkansas was a top 40 station until 11pm. From 11pm to 2am they would crank up the watts and play deep album tracks. You could pick up the station crystal clear in Mo, Ks, Tx, Ia, La. I remember them playing the entire Uriah Heep Live album. I discovered Nazareth, Mott The Hoople, Humble Pie and a lot of other bands listening to it.

DJLinus

I totally agree with a lot of your points - lots of bands should be in first, Jan Wenner's a tool with too much HOF power, etc. - but I'd hardly call Run-DMC a novelty act.

Well, maybe they'd be considered a novelty to those who think hip-hop is a passing fad. A "fad" that's lasted since the 70s, I should add.

macnorton

True hip-hop is a fad now. That top 40 noise they call hip-hop today is total fucking garbage.

nothingfails

I agree. I seriously almost had a heart attack once a few months ago when I heard "Play Guitar" by John Mellencamp on the classic rock station nearby. I suppose the only reason they decided to take the liberty to play a deeper album cut by him (and I've also heard "lesser hits" like This Time and Pop Singer on there too) is because he's a local favorite and only lives about an hour north. But I wish they'd do the same to all the artists.

B5Erik

The novelty of Run DMC was the Rap using Hard Rock samples thing. That's what they are most known for (even if they did other things within the genre).

I do have a problem, though, putting in, "artists," who couldn't play musical instruments and whose, "music" was basically bits of other artists recordings. As a musician myself I find honoring artists who did that to be more than a bit insulting to all the real musicians who deserve induction but will probably never get it.

Matt Bowers

Amen. There are tons of artists in the RRHOF that I respect but don't feel should be in the RRHOF. DUSTY SPRINGFIELD, JOHNNY CASH, & MADONNA immediately come to mind. Rap, Country, R&B, Disco, & Pop artists should not be in a Hall of Fame dedicated to ROCK and ROLL. Period. End of story. Just think how pissed country fans would be if CHEAP TRICK was put in the RAP HALL of FAME or if METALLICA made it in the COUNTRY HALL of FAME. It just doesn't make any sense. Rename it then we can open a true ROCK and ROLL HALL of FAME here in MEMPHIS where it should've been in the first place. Oh yeah, mark my words, GARTH BROOKS will be in the RRHOF eventually. I guarantee it. It doesn't make sense, so it will happen.

Jason

So should artists who don't play instruments at all be allowed in? A lot of the 60's motown groups were just groups of vocalists. So is Run DMC. What's the difference?

Matt Bowers

Hmmm, to me it's all about whether it was rock or not. So if a singer or singing group were rock then they should be eligible. But I can't think of any vocal rock groups where this would apply. As far as solo singers, I definitely think vocalists like TINA TURNER or JANIS JOPLIN should be in the RRHOF. I don't think Motown groups or RUN DMC should be in the ROCK and ROLL HALL of FAME. The fact that they are in is one of the reasons why the RRHOF is not a legitimate institution IMHO.

B5Erik

Run DMC doesn't even sing. They speak in metered rhyme. They don't carry a melody. Those singing groups did.

macnorton

This is an a great example of the definition of "rock and roll" being unclear. You are saying that "rock and roll" has to be artists that play "rock and roll". I am not saying there is a problem with that, but that would shrink the hall down to maybe 100 bands or so.

I on the other hand, look at "rock and roll" from a different perspective. I feel it is more about impact rather than definition. The Stooges, not rock and roll by the tradition definition, but they invented punk. The bombast, the energy, the attitude, it is much more than just the music. Or even Alice Cooper, the theatrics he brought to the game is staggering, even if his music is mediocre at best. And the same could be said for Kiss, who are known for their live performances rather than their studio output.

If you continue to use my definition, Run DMC gets in. They really merged rock and rap into one entity. I think about how many hip-hop fans became Aerosmith fans and vice versa. That alone has to be taken into consideration. However I digress, since opinions will forever be mixed on this topic. That doesn't make one right or wrong, it simply isn't clear on what the term "rock and roll" means.

benedict

In various interviews that I've seen, Ian Kilmister generally labels Motörhead as a rock'n'roll band.

boredsilly

There are fads in rap music (vocoder/autotune nonsense) just like there are in every other genre. However, true hip-hop is as alive and vibrant as ever. Ok, not as great as 87-95 was, but there is still a ton of great shit out there. But just like every other genre that becomes entrenched, the good stuff isn't played on the radio.

What "top 40" music isn't generally the most inoffensive and watered down stuff around for any genre?

macnorton

Believe me there is still plenty of good stuff out there, but it is mostly underground. And even the stuff that does break into the mainstream, it is generally to off the wall (MF Doom is a good example) for the casual listener to "get".

I usually have this discussion (well sometimes argument) with people who think the top 40 stuff is the real deal. One has to be able to distinguish the two, once you do that, you can see hip-hop as a true and amazing art form.

But I digress, since there will always be teenagers buying this shit up until the end of time.

yojimbo44

I work in radio and a few months ago programming and music responsibilities feel into my lap - unfortunately, i must be one of the few people in radio who have heard these complaints and took them to heart. There are enough stations available that if someone wants a non-offensive station playing in the background it can be found - i programmed with the idea that if you get a listener to actively, and not passively, listen then you are doing something right. I tried several times to have our "format" explained to me - "Everything Classic" to me is a very vague term, so i started adding some of the stuff listed above along with Wilco, Elvis Costello, Little Feat, Warren Zevon, Aimee Mann, Concrete Blonde, Tom Waits, Patti Smith, Matthew Sweet, Joy Division, The Flaming Lips and much more,album cuts from other established artists, and local artists of note - surprisingly, this approach worked - people were listening and responding - and then, of course, management cracked down on me and we're back to some of the most uninspiring crap ever recorded. It has been tried, but because good music is as nebulous a term as "everything classic", they would rather stick with what is safe and familiar and i assume this is the trend followed almost everywhere as most stations want to program to reach the most amount of people while offending the least - a sad, sorry state of affairs.

and that phrase also applies to the RRHOF - it was an interesting and cool idea for the first ten years or so when the people who built the music were inducted, but now has become Jann Weiner's personal plaything - who can we get onstage to help us sell $10,000 a plate dinners? When some of the most influencial bands and artists of the last 40 years are still sitting on the sidelines while organizers are moving on to dance and hip-hop it has become a travesty of itself. I was stunned to learn last year that Neil Diamond isn't even in - he was just one of those i assumed would get in right away - and the acts mentioned in the last few pages have all contributed to Rock and Roll in a more meaningful way that perhaps Madonna or Run-DMC have.

nothingfails

I can see where a lot of rock fans dislike Madonna because of the stereotype that people will call them a **** if they're male and like them (nevermind the fact a lot of these people love Queen, R.E.M. and Elton John and don't mind it)... but what the hell is wrong with Johnny Cash or Dusty Springfield? DUSTY IN MEMPHIS is one of the greatest albums of all time, open your musical horizons a bit... and Cash... that man was the definition of a legend who stayed at the top of his game until the day he died, as his last few albums were amazing... and he reached an audience who never listens to country. Look at how the rock establishment loved his "American Recordings" albums, these are people who wouldn't be caught dead listening to Garth, Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney or any of that.

Matt Bowers

I thought I made myself clear but I'll try again. I like DUSTY and JOHHNY but neither are ROCK & ROLL. What's so hard to understand about that? I would just like the ROCK & ROLL HALL of FAME to be about ACTUAL rock artists. That's all. I think it's pretty simple really. BTW, I like MADONNA too. In fact I have all of her cd's even if the last 2 have pretty much sucked and not in a good way. My musical horizons are fairly wide just so you know. I've got over 20,000 songs on my iPod, touching on just about every single musical style except for polka. My argument is not about whether or not I like the artists that are currently in the RRHOF. It's about whether or not they should be in a hall of fame that is SUPPOSED to be dedicated to ROCK & ROLL. Personally I could deal with DUSTY & JOHNNY being in if artists like CHEAP TRICK, KISS & everybody else listed earlier in this thread where already in or at least had a shot of getting in eventually.

Decker

I believe Johnny Cash was a R&R HOF inaugural class member. His influence was as much a factor in the history of Rock & Roll as anyone. Listen to his early Sun recordings and tell me why he's any less deserving as Elvis or Carl Perkins. "Cry, Cry, Cry", "Hey Porter", "Folsom Prison Blues" are just as R&R as "Blue Suede Shoes" or "Hound Dog". His relationship with Bob Dylan changed both the face of country and rock music.
He may be known as a country artist, and rightfully so, but he's a rocker as well.

Besides, there is clearly a place in the HOF for influences and he's certainly that.

Sean O'Hara

Why can't people dislike Madonna because she makes awful pop crap?

nothingfails

well, with Johnny, I think his importance and impact got him in, who cares if it's not the Stones idea of "rock". It reminds me of Stevie Wonder. He has always been a soul/r&b artist, but if he would be deemed unworthy of the Rock Hall because he's a soul/r&b artist and not a rocker, then I'd think the HOF would be a sham because his string of albums from 1972-1976 alone totally merited his induction even if he was r&b and not the idea of what rock music in the 70's was supposed to be. I think importance and influence matter. People like Cash and Stevie may not be rockers at heart, but they are well-respected by the "rock establishment" in ways that Kenny Chesney and R. Kelly can only dream of. To a lesser extent, it applies with Madonna even tho I wouldn't consider her anywhere as influencial, but she has respect from critics and rockers that people like Janet, Kylie and Britney can only dream of having. And factor in Johnny's latter years when he was covering NIN, Soundgarden, Depeche Mode, etc... this wasn't some bumpkin like Alan Jackson, the man was still hip into his senior years and reached a wide audience and fans of every walk of life.