# This year's nominees for the R&R HOF, who ya got?



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Okay, let's not have a discussion about how bogus you may think the R&R HOF is. If that's your subject, start your own thread. This thread is for a discussion of how worthy you may think a nominee for this year is. 

Pat Benatar
Dave Matthews Band
Depeche Mode
The Doobie Brothers
Whitney Houston
Judas Priest
Kraftwerk
MC5
Motörhead
Nine Inch Nails
The Notorious B.I.G.
Rufus featuring Chaka Khan
Todd Rundgren
Soundgarden
T. Rex
Thin Lizzy

I'd go with The Doobies, Houston, Rundgren, Benatar. The Dave Matthews Band is deserving, but they'll get in later. Rufus is a maybe!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Kraftwerk and the Doobies should have been in there a long time ago already.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

MC5, T Rex, Lizzy & Priest should be in there in that order.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I'll go for Kraftwerk and the Doobies also, plus Todd Rundgren and Whitney Houston. Several others on the list ripe for inclusion in the next couple of years.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

T Rex, Todd, Doobies, Kraftwerk.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

MC5 - if the Stooges are already inducted then so should they be. I never thought T. Rex were particularly popular in the USA so I'm surprised as well as pleased at the nomination. Other than MC5 I would nominate Kraftwerk - both groups were very influential. I have no idea why Whitney Houston should be nominated at all - as far as I'm concerned she was an MOR dance-pop act who hardly - if ever - wrote a note of music in her life but I suppose the parameters are so wide that anyone can get in these days.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I'm a Mariah Carey fan myself, over Whitney, but one of the biggest complaints of past R&RHOF picks has been the seeming over-indulgence by the in-group selecting body in electing low-sales, never-broadly-popular cult artists and groups, while ignoring the role of popularity, sales, number one hits, etc. in determining who is truly "famous" in a genre regarded as Popular Music. How about The Stooges and Whitney (and Carey) all getting in?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

With respect, if the HoF ends up including Whitney Houston it won't end there, will it? In time the likes of Stock, Aitken & Waterman, any generic K-pop act and Michael Bublé could get nominated, and if any of them are enshrined then I think it will be a travesty of what the HoF originally stood for.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Donny Trump. He threw our country out of a hotel window.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> With respect, if the HoF ends up including Whitney Houston it won't end there, will it? In time the likes of Stock, Aitken & Waterman, any generic K-pop act and Michael Bublé could get nominated, and if any of them are enshrined then I think it will be a travesty of what the HoF originally stood for.


And with respect, better to err on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness, the slippery-slope argument notwithstanding. The _Rolling Stone History of Women in Rock _ (1997) has a huge chapter titled Smooth Operators: Contemporary R&B with references to Aaliyah, Patti Austin, Anita Baker, Mary T. Blige, Tanya Blount, Toni Braxton, Mariah Carey, Randy Crawford, Des'ree, En Vogue, Dionne Farris, Whitney Houston, Miki Howard, Chante Moore, Alison Moyet, Shara Nelson, Mica Paris, Juliet Roberts, Sade, Sandra St. Victor, Lisa Stansfield, TLC, Jodi Whatley, Caron Wheeler, Karyn White, Vanessa Williams, CeCe Winans, and Angela Winbush. It's obvious that not all of these should be voted into the HOF, but surely the genre is elastic enough to allow at least the sales and charting giants such as Houston and Carey in.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston rock about as hard as a bowl of cottage cheese. This whole thing is a farce. Why don't they just induct every million selling artist ever signed to a corporate label and be done with it?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston rock about as hard as a bowl of cottage cheese. This whole thing is a farce. Why don't they just induct every million selling artist ever signed to a corporate label and be done with it?


"Rock and Roll" is undefined. So long as that is the case, let there be at least some concession on the part of the in-crowd doing the picking to the fact that, as popular music, mass music, LCD music--if that is the term that most pleases--sales count, hits count, filling arenas counts, and these facts should have a place in deciding who's in, who's out. There are cult figures who are touted as having influenced this or that well-known Rock or Pop artist or group, but whose sales and actual audience were miniscule and whose actual influence cannot be detected in the work of those who it is claimed are their heirs. I lay much of this at the feet of Rock critics, many of whom really do not like popular music and wandered into Rock criticism from other fields, looking for easy work and the chance to be First in Pompeii when they could not be Second in Rome.

Check out this listing of unit sales by group/artist:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Wow, never thought I'd feel like I would have to defend Whitney here. I included her simply for her ability as a vocalist and nothing more. Could she use her voice any less effectively than James Jamerson could use his instrument???? I'm not seeing much difference there. A powerful voice that could keep the same tone across a wide range. Certainly a gifted vocalist!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Pat Benatar - Fine vocalist. Had a few good rock songs. Nothing special beyond that (though I have awfully fond memories of my dad and I jamming Heartbreaker back in the day). 

Dave Matthews Band - They vacillated between a mediocre jam band and a mediocre pop band. I don't think they're HOF material.

Depeche Mode - A massively influential electronic band whose impact is still being felt in pop music today. Not a personal favorite, but they deserve to be in there. 

The Doobie Brothers - Borderline band (leaning YES). I really enjoy them, but they very much feel "of their time" and I don't think they had much impact/influence on future rock. 

Whitney Houston - Not a fan, but she deserves a spot. Her and Mariah Carey pretty much defined the modern concept of a vocal powerhouse diva. 

Judas Priest - Should've been in long ago. One can make a case that, outside Sabbath, Zeppelin, and Purple, JP had the biggest impact on the future of hard rock and metal. 

Kraftwerk - Absolutely deserves in. Again, not a huge fan, but they were to the 80s what Depeche Mode was to the 90s. 

MC5 - Another borderline (leaning no). The problem with most punk bands is that their legacy is often dependent upon one album that tended to be more influential in concept than good in execution. 

Motörhead - Also borderline (leaning yes). I love Motorhead, but they're somewhat to metal what AC/DC was to classic rock; dependable but samey. 

Nine Inch Nails - Probably deserves in though, again, I'm not a fan. They were an awfully big force in the 90s. 

The Notorious B.I.G. - I don't care for rap but his reputation is pretty unquestioned in the world of hip-hop. 

Rufus featuring Chaka Khan - Not very familiar. 

Todd Rundgren - I like what I've heard of Rundgren, but I'm not familiar enough to weigh in. 

Soundgarden - Borderline (leaning no). Badmotorfinger and Superunknown were great albums, but I don't think either were generation-defining the way, say, Nirvana's Nevermind, Pearl Jam's Ten, or Alice In Chains's Dirt was. 

T. Rex - Probably yes. They were one of the big figures in 70s glam rock. 

Thin Lizzy - Very much yes. Tragically underrated and underappreciated for how versatile and consistently excellent they were. They're also one of the "secret" influences on metal given how much they pioneered the duel lead guitar sound. 

*************

To sum up (my opinion): 

Definitely yes: Depeche Mode, Whitney Houston, Judas Priest, Kraftwerk, Notorious B.I.G., Thin Lizzy

Probably eventually: Doobie Brothers, Motorhead, Nine Inch Nails, T. Rex

Probably not: Pat Benatar, DMB, MC5, Soundgarden

If I was actually making predictions, I feel like Depeche Mode, Whitney Houston, Kraftwerk, and B.I.G will make it, but I'm doubtful about the others.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston rock about as hard as a bowl of cottage cheese.


There's plenty of artists in the RAR HOF that were barely (if at all) rock artists: Miles Davis, Nina Simone, ABBA, Tupac, Joan Baez, Leonard Cohen, etc. Clearly they're using the term pretty loosely.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Like I said, just vote everybody in and be done with it. It's just a promotional device for the industry. It has nothing to do with music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Let us again wonder at the authenticity of the in-group selectors as Kate Bush again fails to be nominated. What color is the sky on the planet they inhabit?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Let us again wonder at the authenticity of the in-group selectors as Kate Bush again fails to be nominated. What color is the sky on the planet they inhabit?


That's probably a national blind-spot at work as very few in the US seem to know her. I only found her thanks to Bjork citing her as an influence.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's probably a national blind-spot at work as very few in the US seem to know her. I only found her thanks to Bjork citing her as an influence.


This may be true, but, again, how may Americans knew of Depeche Mode? My own inclination is to believe Kate Bush, a monumentally well-known artist in the UK and all over the rest of the English-speaking and singing world, has been excluded as have so many others because she is not correctly wired-in with either the aesthetics, sociology/demographics, or business interests that control the selection process. I am not saying it's all part of a plot. but I am saying that a willful blindness often rules these proceedings. Just look at the delay in getting Jefferson Airplane into the HOF. And can anybody tell me why Ronnie Spector is in the HOF?

My apologies to our OP for wandering into terrain he hoped we would avoid!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's probably a national blind-spot at work as very few in the US seem to know her. I only found her thanks to Bjork citing her as an influence.


How can rock figures be evaluated when their intention is to merely entertain so many different types of people, different ages and experiences? I mean if you don't appreciate a rock artist it's probably because you haven't had the experiences 'required' (to put it objectively and politely).


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Who will actually get in - 

1.) Whitney Houston
2.) Rufus wit Chaka Khan
3.) The Notorious B.I.G.
4.) Depeche Mode
5.) Judas Priest

This is what 2020's induction (not nomination - induction) class would look like if the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was located somewhere - anywhere - in Canada and we as a nation collectively decided that we needed to induct 15 names instead of 5 to correct the historic injustices done to the following overlooked artists by the musical-industrial complex located in Cleveland, Ohio -

Kate Bush

Emerson, Lake, and Palmer

Fairport Convention

The Guess Who

Carole King

Jethro Tull

Love

The Monkees

Mott the Hoople

New York Dolls

Harry Nilsson

Gram Parsons

Carly Simon

Television

Warren Zevon


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Way to go! Inclusiveness over exclusiveness, combined with a reduction in the nomination and induction of purely cult favorites, darlings, and fetishes. Meat Puppets?: You are warned. I'm content that Tiny Lights and Eat finally got Wikipedia references; I would never expect them to be nominated for HOF inclusion.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston rock about as hard as a bowl of cottage cheese. This whole thing is a farce. Why don't they just induct every million selling artist ever signed to a corporate label and be done with it?


I suspect it's already pretty much that. And that's exactly the reason that explain why I can't care less. It's a thing like Grammys or Oscar prizes (contemporary Oscar prizes in particular, where crappy movies like Slumdog millionaire could win 8 oscars). It's not about quality, it's about popularity.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> "Rock and Roll" is undefined. So long as that is the case, let there be at least some concession on the part of the in-crowd doing the picking to the fact that, as popular music, mass music, LCD music--if that is the term that most pleases--sales count, hits count, filling arenas counts, and these facts should have a place in deciding who's in, who's out. There are cult figures who are touted as having influenced this or that well-known Rock or Pop artist or group, but whose sales and actual audience were miniscule and whose actual influence cannot be detected in the work of those who it is claimed are their heirs. I lay much of this at the feet of Rock critics, many of whom really do not like popular music and wandered into Rock criticism from other fields, looking for easy work and the chance to be First in Pompeii when they could not be Second in Rome.


I'm curious to know if when you're listening a pop song you're like "mmmh, this one sold 10 millions of copies, so good".
Believe it or not, sales are completely irrelevant to a lot of people who listen popular music, they decide if they like what they are listening with their ears and not with the numbers of copies that an artist sold. And artistic merit, especially in pop music (where popularity is determined by a lot of extramusical factor), is not strictly related to how much an artist is popular.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> I suspect it's already pretty much that. And that's exactly the reason that explain why I can't care less. It's a thing like Grammys or Oscar prizes (contemporary Oscar prizes in particular, where crappy movies like Slumdog millionaire could win 8 oscars). It's not about quality, it's about popularity.


If only it was (just about) popularity. Then there would be an agreed, understood criterion. As it is, inclusion mimics a random-number phenomenon, but the nominees and inductees issue out of a black box whose workings are clearly known only to and by a few. Popularity is often only grudgingly acknowledged, and is repeatedly seen as an actual hindrance to recognition--something for the Great Unwashed to drool over, and a stigma of lack of artistic "integrity".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> I'm curious to know if when you're listening a pop song you're like "mmmh, this one sold 10 millions of copies, so good".
> Believe it or not, sales are completely irrelevant to a lot of people who listen popular music, they decide if they like what they are listening with their ears and not with the numbers of copies that an artist sold. And artistic merit, especially in pop music (where popularity is determined by a lot of extramusical factor), is not strictly related to how much an artist is popular.


I agree with both of your assertions. Yet popular music by definition is or should be popular, and that should enter strongly into the Hall of Fame deliberations, nominations, and elections.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> I agree with both of your assertions. Yet popular music by definition is or should be popular, and that should enter strongly into the Hall of Fame deliberations, nominations, and elections.


I think that like in architecture brutalism is not about something brutal but about concrete, popular music is not about popularity. It's only another way to describe everything that it's not classical music basically.

There's actually a lot of classical music that it's popular (Beethoven's fifth symphony it's not considered popular music even if everybody knows the da-da-da-daaan) and a lot of popular music is made by musicians who aren't well known even in their families... and maybe they are making great pop tunes in the style of the beatles.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"Popular music is not about popularity." Once I internalize that concept.......


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> "Popular music is not about popularity." Once I internalize that concept.......


You say that like it's a weird idea and not a widely accepted one.
A composer like Bartok took inspiration from the popular music of his time. Do you think that those songs were popular like Michael Jackson? Or what about the field recordings made by Alan Lomax. Or what about a lot of poor bluesmen. How would you define that? It's still popular music, like a lot of folk music around the world. I know you're a fan of flamenco. Would you say that it's not popular music?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> You say that like it's a weird idea and not a widely accepted one.
> A composer like Bartok took inspiration from the popular music of his time. Do you think that those songs were popular like Michael Jackson? Or what about the field recordings made by Alan Lomax. Or what about a lot of poor bluesmen. How would you define that? It's still popular music, like a lot of folk music around the world. I know you're a fan of flamenco. Would you say that it's not popular music?


We're talking about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, are we not? Not folk music, not Bartok, not flamenco, certainly not sung flamenco. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame contains almost entirely people who sing (usually sing, with musical accompaniment) Rock and/or Pop. As such, to repeat myself, it is reasonable to acknowledge that popularity as measured by something--sales, units moved, arenas filled--be an important part of the process in picking Famous People in Rock and Pop. The Hall of Fame induction process has had a feeble, tenuous acceptance because of its history of bypassing hugely popular artists and groups while objects of cult or other enthusiasm are voted in. All I'm saying.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups by their measurements of popularity (see the article), offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation. I am not suggesting that units moved be the only criterion, but it shows--to me anyway--that The Public is not always wrong when it comes to "worthwhile" popular music.

The Beatles
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson
Madonna
Elton John
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Eminem
Mariah Carey
The Eagles
Taylor Swift
Queen
Whitney Houston
Céline Dion
AC/DC
The Rolling Stones
Garth Brooks
Drake
Ed Sheeran
Billy Joel
U2
Phil Collins
Aerosmith
ABBA 
Frank Sinatra
Barbra Streisand
Katy Perry
Justin Bieber
Kanye West
Bruce Springsteen 
Bruno Mars
Jay-Z
Metallica
Lady Gaga
Adele
Fleetwood Mac
Bee Gees
Lil Wayne
Maroon 5
Chris Brown
Beyoncé
Coldplay
Linkin Park
B'z
Bon Jovi
Britney Spears
Rod Stewart
Guns N' Roses
Backstreet Boys


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> This may be true, but, again, how may Americans knew of Depeche Mode? My own inclination is to believe Kate Bush, a monumentally well-known artist in the UK and all over the rest of the English-speaking and singing world, has been excluded as have so many others because she is not correctly wired-in with either the aesthetics, sociology/demographics, or business interests that control the selection process. I am not saying it's all part of a plot. but I am saying that a willful blindness often rules these proceedings. Just look at the delay in getting Jefferson Airplane into the HOF. And can anybody tell me why Ronnie Spector is in the HOF?
> 
> My apologies to our OP for wandering into terrain he hoped we would avoid!


Depeche Mode seem pretty well known in the US to me. At least, I've known of them for a very long time and have seen them mentioned a great deal. It doesn't hurt that they actually had big hits that played in the US--Personal Jesus was massive; still is given it has 100 million views on YouTube, while Kate Bush's biggest song (Wuthering Heights) has less than half of that. Plus, I'd say Depeche Mode had a much bigger impact on US bands/artists compared to Kate Bush.

Thing is, the people that make up the RARHOF have biases and blindspots like any listener does, so I don't think we need to speculate about her absence or lack of nominations beyond that. I could probably name at least a dozen of other artists whose absence I'm more surprised about: King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Pixies, The Replacements, The Smiths, Iron Maiden, New York Dolls, Big Star, Joy Division, Rage Against the Machine... just for starters. I think I can find reasons for all of these; RARHOF has always been baised against metal and prog, which explains the snubbing of Crimson, Tull, and Maiden. Like Bush, The Smiths and Joy Division were more UK phenomenons. Pixies, The Replacements, and Big Star were more underground artists who ended up having big impacts on later mainstream acts. That leaves New York Dolls and RATM as the exclusions that are harder to explain.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Todd Rundgren.

The fact that he is not already 'inducted' and features in a list of nominees that includes a fine range of mediocrity is remarkable. For the best part of 50 years the man has made such a contribution as songwriter, musician, bandleader and producer.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I'm curious to know if when you're listening a pop song you're like "mmmh, this one sold 10 millions of copies, so good".
> Believe it or not, sales are completely irrelevant to a lot of people who listen popular music, they decide if they like what they are listening with their ears and not with the numbers of copies that an artist sold. And artistic merit, especially in pop music (where popularity is determined by a lot of extramusical factor), is not strictly related to how much an artist is popular.


One thing to keep in mind is that it's the "Rock and Roll Hall of *FAME*" and not the "Rock and Roll Hall of *Talent*." In any case, popularity is one good measurement of how much of a cultural impact an artist has had, influence is another. "Artistic Merit" entirely depends upon who's creating the standards, and such things will be less objective (actually, not at all) than popularity.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> We're talking about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, are we not? Not folk music, not Bartok, not flamenco, certainly not sung flamenco. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame contains almost entirely people who sing (usually sing, with musical accompaniment) Rock and/or Pop. As such, to repeat myself, it is* reasonable to acknowledge that popularity as measured by something--sales, units moved, arenas filled--be an important part of the process in picking Famous People in Rock and Pop*. The Hall of Fame induction process has had a feeble, tenuous acceptance because of its history of bypassing hugely popular artists and groups while objects of cult or other enthusiasm are voted in. All I'm saying.


Considering that the popularity in pop-rock music music is largely determined by the look of the artists (how strange that a lot of them were or are good looking!) or by things like payola, I can't find a reason of interest in a hall of fame that just repeats the obvious taking people who have sold a lot of copies because they have sold a lot of copies. But to each his own I guess. Personally I can read wikipedia or other sources to know who has become rich making rock music, I don't need another recognition of this single fact to know that.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups by their measurements of popularity (see the article), offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation. I am not suggesting that units moved be the only criterion, but it shows--to me anyway--that The Public is not always wrong when it comes to "worthwhile" popular music.
> 
> The Beatles
> Elvis Presley
> ...


Personally I think that a lot of those names (with exceptions obviously) make garbage and some of the worst popular music out there, who would not have been even a small fraction of their popularity if it wasn't for their look or other things not connected to artistic merit so...


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

jim prideaux said:


> Todd Rundgren.
> 
> The fact that he is not already 'inducted' and features in a list of nominees that includes a fine range of mediocrity is remarkable. For the best part of 50 years the man has made such a contribution as songwriter, musician, bandleader and producer.


Seconded... however Todd's almost pathological inability to disguise his unbridled contempt may be somewhat of a hindrance towards his gaining admission -

""I didn't expect it and have never cared about it. The hardest thing was keeping my fans' expectations within reasonable bounds because they are very naive about it. I'm not; It's some weird Illuminati thing and nobody understands how it works and who does the voting and the nominee selections and all that sort of crap."

"I'm not looking for some organization to acknowledge me, somehow. Besides, the Hall of Fame doesn't make any sense to me because musicians don't have to retire. Athletes retire, and that's when they go into the Hall of Fame, because they're not playing anymore. But everybody (the Rock Hall) is inducting now is still playing, so how can you say you've got the measure of them? You don't. So, no, I really don't care."

"I've never really taken the whole thing seriously. I've never watched any of those shows. I don't pay attention to who wins. I do recognize it as an exercise for the fans, especially at this phase, and I'm happy they have the opportunity to make their declarations about who they think should be in and that sort of thing -- the reality being all those fan votes equal one vote out of a thousand ballots or whatever it is. I have no idea what the ultimate outcome will be, so I don't want to invest myself in it."

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/8533026/todd-rundgren-rock-hall-fame-nomination


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Good for Todd! Todd and the RARHOF can both reward and punish themselves and one another by voting Rundgren in! Todd surely does deserve in on many criteria: I Saw the Light!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

How about a Rock and Roll Hall of Obscurity? Nomination and possible inclusion only after 25 years of public "presence" but sales falling below a key trigger point. That way my two recently mentioned faves--Tiny Lights and Eat--are in! The overall story would be "Unpopular Music". We might meet a number of current RARHOF members in the Hall of Obscurity.......


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> Considering that the popularity in pop-rock music music is largely determined by the look of the artists (how strange that a lot of them were or are good looking!) or by things like payola...


I think both of these are popular misconceptions. Finding pretty people is not difficult, and neither is grooming them to be stars; the difficulty is getting them to sing songs the public wants to hear, and that's not a simple matter of payola. Labels and managers have tried to develop/groom stars based more on looks than talent and their efforts fail as much as they succeed.

Inevitably, most of the biggest stars of any day were those just happened to have the best (or, at least, most popular) songs, rather than those that were the best looking. Look at the 2010s: best-selling albums were Adele's 21 and Eminem's Recovery; neither are a product of labels grooming good-looking stars. Even when the latter happens, the successes tend to be those that also happened to have worked with the best songwriters of the day, which explains the success of all the stars that got to work with Max Martin.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think both of these are popular misconceptions. Finding pretty people is not difficult, and neither is grooming them to be stars; the difficulty is getting them to sing songs the public wants to hear, and that's not a simple matter of payola. Labels and managers have tried to develop/groom stars based more on looks than talent and their efforts fail as much as they succeed.
> 
> Inevitably, most of the biggest stars of any day were those just happened to have the best (or, at least, most popular) songs, rather than those that were the best looking. Look at the 2010s: best-selling albums were Adele's 21 and Eminem's Recovery; neither are a product of labels grooming good-looking stars. Even when the latter happens, the successes tend to be those that also happened to have worked with the best songwriters of the day, which explains the success of all the stars that got to work with Max Martin.


Eminem is certainly not ugly. And the vast majority of famous artists are good looking. 
Take a band like The Rolling stones (and it's a strange example because I don't think Jagger or Richards were particularly attractive): they fired Ian Stewart for no other reason that his look.
I think the misconception is to think that the look of an artist does not have any importance for his success.
And payola existed too.
There are also other factors that determine the success, like place and language (for instance Atahualpa Yupanqui is probably one of the greatest singer songwriters ever, how many people into Dylan, Neil Young, Cohen etc knows him?), the ability to sell ownself (I can think of Alec Wilder, one of the greatest songwriters America has produced in my opinion, but he didn't care at all to promote himself, he gave away his music to his friends without having copies), the complexity of the music and if that music does not deviate too much from the norm of the time (Herbie Nichols)...

Then sure, there are fortunately famous musicians that are great artists too. But the idea that the most successful artists are necessarily the best because a lot of people likes them is very naive. And even time does not make always justice. Who knows how many Bach or Kafka will not be rediscovered for a reason or another.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> Eminem is certainly not ugly. And the vast majority of famous artists are good looking.
> Take a band like The Rolling stones (and it's a strange example because I don't think Jagger or Richards were particularly attractive): they fired Ian Stewart for no other reason that his look.
> I think the misconception is to think that the look of an artist does not have any importance for his success.
> And payola existed too.
> ...


Eminem is not ugly but neither is he a heart-throb like Justin Bieber, and I doubt anyone would claim his success is based on looks.

It's not that I disagree that the majority of pop stars good looking--though it's important to understand that money, makeup, and stylists can do wonders for even average/below-average looking people--it's that I was pointing out that good looks aren't enough. Pretty much all pop artists, both successful and non-successful, are at least decent looking, yet there's still a vast difference in levels of success that doesn't track well with level of attractiveness and pretty strongly by who had the biggest hit songs. Likewise, yes, payola is a factor, but mostly in exposure; this still doesn't mean that everyone who's promoted is also successful. Again, the songs still got to be there for the above two things to matter. They just help IF the songs are successful; but they can be successful even without those two things (again, Adele).

I also didn't claim that success/popularity always tracks with greatness either; I merely said that the latter is (necessarily) based on subjectively created standards (and often subjective factors) while the former is not.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> How about a Rock and Roll Hall of Obscurity? Nomination and possible inclusion only after 25 years of public "presence" but sales falling below a key trigger point. That way my two recently mentioned faves--Tiny Lights and Eat--are in! The overall story would be "Unpopular Music". We might meet a number of current RARHOF members in the Hall of Obscurity.......


Rock and Roll Hall of Obscurity - seconded!

And so, to ensure that progressive rock doesn't once again become the red-headed stepchild of the music industry allow me to make the third nomination - 1970's English prog-rockers - Public Foot the Roman -









Thus far the nominees are -

1.) Tiny Lights

2.) Eat

3.) Public Foot the Roman


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

There is a range of human grokiness. If you could plot it out, you'd get a bell curve. The ability to write to appeal to the broader range of people on either side of that curve....is an art form in of itself.

Which is why you don't have hot shot graduate students in composition making it in pop music, getting rich from their sales, and retiring to Arles to write their 12 tone developing variation masterpieces.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

norman bates said:


> Personally I think that a lot of those names (with exceptions obviously) make garbage and some of the worst popular music out there, who would not have been even a small fraction of their popularity if it wasn't for their look or other things not connected to artistic merit so...


You wonder why so many people go so far off the deep end, especially in America, and all you have to do is see what so many people view as "culture." Listen to ee cummings recite his poetry on YT, and you can see how far we've fallen. I think culture should be a type of mandatory thing that all people must be exposed to in school, like it used to be, somewhat.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> Listen to ee cummings recite his poetry on YT, and you can see how far we've fallen.


Back in the day I guarantee there were people that said that ee cummings's poetry was an example of how far the art-form had fallen, and so it goes.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The only ones I'm interested in seeing enshrined is the dynamic Pat Benatar and her talented long-time husband, Neil Geraldo. She's fantastic. Gutsy yet vulnerable. I've considered her first-rate as a vocalist for years and she's still actively performing with her husband. I believe they should be enshrined together because they have been married for 35 years and created so much great music together. If she gets in and he doesn't I believe that would be entirely unfair and could be very hard on their marriage, plus he's deserving anyway as one of the top guitarists in rock. I believe this is the year for both of them. Her performance of "Hell is for Children" is moving, outspoken and brilliant:






Another personal favorite is her brilliant performance of Kate Bush's "Wuthering Heights":






Her voice was operatically trained and it shows.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Really, the only two artists I'd personally really like to see get in are Judas Priest and Thin Lizzy. I feel like Priest will get in eventually, but I'm not as sure about Lizzy. They're mostly just known for The Boys Are Back in Town (and maybe Jailbreak for classic rock radio listeners), but anyone who's bothered to go deeper would realize how versatile they were. It's hard to really appreciate that versatility with a few picks, but to give an idea:


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Now this ladies and gentlemen, this is why Todd deserves election into the HOF: First, he wrote this incredible song, second, that's a hell of a vocal performance he gives live, and finally, for his choice of backup singers. Watch, you'll thank me!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> Now this ladies and gentlemen, this is why Todd deserves election into the HOF: First, he wrote this incredible song, second, that's a hell of a vocal performance he gives live, and finally, for his choice of backup singers. Watch, you'll thank me!


Pure Todd! Many thanks indeed.

More Todd, with Daryl Hall:

https://www.talkclassical.com/42492-strange-magic-todd-rundgren.html?highlight=Todd+Rundgren


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Back in the day I guarantee there were people that said that ee cummings's poetry was an example of how far the art-form had fallen, and so it goes.


Yes, quick easy answer. Everyone says that. But 40 years ago and before, we didn't have hardly any mass shootings.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

regenmusic said:


> Yes, quick easy answer. Everyone says that. But 40 years ago and before, we didn't have hardly any mass shootings.


Factoring out for the sake of argument World Wars One and Two, the Korean War, and Viet Nam...


----------

