|
Post by sayne on Mar 21, 2010 19:00:13 GMT -5
. . Has any woman in history had two classic love songs written about her by two different artist, "Something" and "Layla." George said in an interview that Something really wasn't about/to/for/inspired by Pattie. But, I'm sure it did give him some bedroom "capital" for the next few months after it came out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 22, 2010 5:57:59 GMT -5
Why did he walk off Regis & Kelly? Never heard of this... (I live in the Far East.) The show wanted Ringo to shorten his song "Liverpool 8" because of time constraints. Ringo was mad because he felt that each line of that song was an integral part of the song and his life! He and the band marched off the set in a huff. Apparently all sides later issued statements saying that all was cool. I wonder if Ringo was invited back to plug "Walk With You" off his latest album, whatever it was called as I've forgotten it already. You've forgotten the album title? Anyway -- I always respected Ringo for not compromising his song and giving into editing it for Regis' time constraints. Good for him!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 26, 2010 12:49:57 GMT -5
But there is an element of mystery to their relationship in these periods; the mid-70's and 80's. It is the most difficult period to ascertain how they really felt about each other. As late as 1988, when The Beatles were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame, Paul refused to attend the ceremony alluding to the fact he felt it would be hypocritical of him to appear with George & Ringo in public when the lawsuits were still pending a resolution at that point. Anyone care to offer opinions? Only that I always thought Paul came off badly by not attending the R&RHOF ceremony with George and Ringo. He could and should have made it, even with their resolution problems pending. He said he wanted to go, and I have no doubt about that. It's right up his alley. Too bad he let the crap stand in his way. Why should he as he said at the time go to a "fake" Beatles reunion where they pretend false goodwill. It seemed too much like manipulation from the outside. If they wanted to get together as the Threetles, Paul wanted them to do it at a time or place of their own choosing, not at some cheezy awards show. They had sued Paul because he had negotiated a better deal with Capital/EMI. But as it turned out a rising tide raises all boats and soon after that they were all awarded the increased royalty rate. Thanks again Paul. He was right about the breakup (he won the court case), right about Klein (the other three sacked him after they sued him) and was proven to be right regarding the royalties lawsuit. Not only did he have the right to negotiate a higher royalty rate based on his sales, he opened the door for Yoko, George and Ringo to have the same higher rate. Thanks Paul.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 26, 2010 12:56:55 GMT -5
And poor George (literally!) was so hard up having lost so much with his Handmade company that he had to (reluctantly) do the Anthology project. But sadly he still wasn't over his Beatle/Paul loathing. and never was. (my wife thinks he owed so much to Paul that he should have been more grateful and tolerant) I never got any impression that George was reluctant to do the Anthology project, and only did it to recoup financial losses on his film company? Is he quoted anywhere saying this? Maybe I missed something? Judging from his filmed interviews for the project and especially the Anthology book, George seemed very forthcoming with his recollections of his Beatle past. And it was George who hosted the other two at his home for the Anthology jam sessions seen on film. And following the Anthology period, it seems Paul and George were getting on quite well. George attended Linda's memorial service in London in 1998, which I personally witnessed having stood out in the rain all day in London and I saw George in his hooded raingear arrive with Olivia and Dhani at the church. And the two socialized as well when they traveled together to Las Vegas in 2000 to see Cirque du Soleil's "O" Show. I think once the lawsuits were settled pre-Anthology, Paul at least, made a concerted effort to patch up his relationship with George, and George appeared quite receptive to the gesture. Your wife has that right. Where would George have been if not for Paul?. If George didn't want fame, he shouldn't have sought to join such a talented rock band.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 26, 2010 13:00:54 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that John was actually truly happy during that 'Lost Weekend' period,quote] I'm with Joe on this one. I think Lennon was absolutely miserable during his Lost Weekend period. A border-line frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. I believe Lennon very likely might have killed himself, or somebody else, during this period, if Yoko hadn't finally allowed him to come back home to New York. I'm sure he had some great parties along the way, too. Rocknroll, ya pukes. But what goes up comes down. That's the spin Yoko wants to put on it--"John was miserable because he was not with me" is how it is portrayed. To be fair, maybe in the end he came to that conclusion and Paul helped them get back together in a She Loves You scenario. But before that point, John enjoyed himself with May Pang and Julian and even got closer to Paul again. He was even going to attend a Wings recording session. They were talking about reunion seriously. John said at one point it would be great to get back together with the boys again. This idea that he only took drugs excessively during this period is laughable. He always struggled with heavy drug use after about 1965.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 26, 2010 13:49:52 GMT -5
Only that I always thought Paul came off badly by not attending the R&RHOF ceremony with George and Ringo. He could and should have made it, even with their resolution problems pending. He said he wanted to go, and I have no doubt about that. It's right up his alley. Too bad he let the crap stand in his way. Why should he as he said at the time go to a "fake" Beatles reunion where they pretend false goodwill. It seemed too much like manipulation from the outside. If they wanted to get together as the Threetles, Paul wanted them to do it at a time or place of their own choosing, not at some cheezy awards show. They had sued Paul because he had negotiated a better deal with Capital/EMI. But as it turned out a rising tide raises all boats and soon after that they were all awarded the increased royalty rate. Thanks again Paul. He was right about the breakup (he won the court case), right about Klein (the other three sacked him after they sued him) and was proven to be right regarding the royalties lawsuit. Not only did he have the right to negotiate a higher royalty rate based on his sales, he opened the door for Yoko, George and Ringo to have the same higher rate. Thanks Paul. I think if Paul appeared in'88, it would have not been as "magical" as one would think. They would have blended in with the 50 other musicians on stage. It would have been slop. Paul without an instrument would be flailing his arms about awkwardly like he did with Billy Joel in a later HOF appearance. Jagger would still be hamming it up for his precious seconds... If they did it with just the three and maybe Billy Preston or Elton John and Clapton, we might be talking a different thing.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 26, 2010 14:44:42 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that John was actually truly happy during that 'Lost Weekend' period,quote] I'm with Joe on this one. I think Lennon was absolutely miserable during his Lost Weekend period. A border-line frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. I believe Lennon very likely might have killed himself, or somebody else, during this period, if Yoko hadn't finally allowed him to come back home to New York. I'm sure he had some great parties along the way, too. Rocknroll, ya pukes. But what goes up comes down. That's the spin Yoko wants to put on it--"John was miserable because he was not with me" is how it is portrayed. To be fair, maybe in the end he came to that conclusion and Paul helped them get back together in a She Loves You scenario. But before that point, John enjoyed himself with May Pang and Julian and even got closer to Paul again. He was even going to attend a Wings recording session. They were talking about reunion seriously. John said at one point it would be great to get back together with the boys again. This idea that he only took drugs excessively during this period is laughable. He always struggled with heavy drug use after about 1965. Well, its always hard to tell from the outside-looking-in, along with the endless spins of Beatles myth, as well as Yoko's, ahem, propaganda. But May Pang's book (and her version is confirmed by many, many other accounts) paints a picture of a seriously deranged John Lennon. A guy who went completely berzerk on probably at least a dozen occasions. Bashed his guitarist, Jesse Ed, over the head with a slab ashtray, knocked him unconscious, and came close to killing him. Strangled May Pang around the neck on another binge, leaving big red welts in her neck. Completely demolished several of the homes they were staying in. According to Dr John (the night tripper) he bit another musician in the face and broke his sax (that offended Dr John the most -- "You don't mess with another cat's horn."). Lennon, as McCartney aptly put it, was "a great jumper-off-of-cliffs." I suspect without a strong, domineering presence like Yoko to reel him in, he would have almost inevitably jumped off one cliff too many. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 26, 2010 16:10:37 GMT -5
That's the spin Yoko wants to put on it--"John was miserable because he was not with me" is how it is portrayed. What "Yoko Spin"? John himself said he needed to be with Yoko, wanted to be with her, and literally could not survive without her (John's words). It was Lennon who made it clear he was miserable without Yoko. He certainly hit the booze like he hadn't in many years during that Lost Weekend... he completely drowned his sorrows in the bottle.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 26, 2010 16:17:38 GMT -5
Why should he as he said at the time go to a "fake" Beatles reunion where they pretend false goodwill. It seemed too much like manipulation from the outside. If they wanted to get together as the Threetles, Paul wanted them to do it at a time or place of their own choosing, not at some cheezy awards show. At the time, the BEATLES being inducted into the ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME was hardly what I'd call "some cheezy awards show". And even if you believe it was cheezy, it's not like Paul McCartney hadn't already served up a heapin' helpin' of cheese throughout his entire career!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 26, 2010 16:45:08 GMT -5
Why should he as he said at the time go to a "fake" Beatles reunion where they pretend false goodwill. It seemed too much like manipulation from the outside. If they wanted to get together as the Threetles, Paul wanted them to do it at a time or place of their own choosing, not at some cheezy awards show. At the time, the BEATLES being inducted into the ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME was hardly what I'd call "some cheezy awards show". And even if you believe it was cheezy, it's not like Paul McCartney hadn't already served up a heapin' helpin' of cheese throughout his entire career! I like cheese.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 27, 2010 5:40:22 GMT -5
So too must Paul, so I don't see why there'd be any objection to his appearing at a "cheezy awards show" for either of you!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 30, 2010 10:17:54 GMT -5
Patty Boyd beat her to it. Pretty good book about life with George and Eric. But there's a bit of rock trivia for you. Has any woman in history had two classic love songs written about her by two different artist, "Something" and "Layla." Liverpool prostitute Maggie Mae. The Beatles sang about her in an old folk song and then Rod Stewart paid his own tribute whilst cunningly disguising the title with a swift letter change from E to Y ;D Here's another: Jan and Dean wrote the song "Linda" about Linda McCartney. And of coure Paul wrote many songs about Linda: "Lovely Linda," "Maybe I'm Amazed," "My Love," etc. (Jan and Dean wrote their "Linda" song when Linda McCartney was a baby. I believe they were friends with the family, her dad being an entertainment lawyer.)
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 30, 2010 18:41:44 GMT -5
So too must Paul, so I don't see why there'd be any objection to his appearing at a "cheezy awards show" for either of you! I just don't have a lot of respect for a rock and roll awards panel that leaves off the Monkees, for example, and lets Madonna in. They shouldn't have waited for the late 90s to bring Paul as solo artist in and Wings should be in before Jimmie Rogers, Ma Rainey, LaVern Baker, Jimmy Reed, Booker Table and the Matradees, Bill Monroe, Lloyd Price, The Staple Singers, Solomon Burke, Johnny Johnson, The Flamingos, Brenda Lee, Jim Stewart, Isaac Hayes, Benny Benjamin, Steve Douglas (My Three Sons?), Jann Wenner, Percy Sledge, Little Walter, Spooner Oldham, Wanda Jackson just for example. I really question their judgement. Its a very subjective and biased process.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 31, 2010 7:42:23 GMT -5
So too must Paul, so I don't see why there'd be any objection to his appearing at a "cheezy awards show" for either of you! I just don't have a lot of respect for a rock and roll awards panel that leaves off the Monkees, for example, and lets Madonna in. They shouldn't have waited for the late 90s to bring Paul as solo artist in and Wings should be in before Jimmie Rogers, Ma Rainey, LaVern Baker, Jimmy Reed, Booker Table and the Matradees, Bill Monroe, Lloyd Price, The Staple Singers, Solomon Burke, Johnny Johnson, The Flamingos, Brenda Lee, Jim Stewart, Isaac Hayes, Benny Benjamin, Steve Douglas (My Three Sons?), Jann Wenner, Percy Sledge, Little Walter, Spooner Oldham, Wanda Jackson just for example. I really question their judgement. Its a very subjective and biased process. It's a joke, I haven't heard of any of them. In any case solo Paul should have been inducted at the same time as solo John, no question about it. I disagree about Madonna. She has done so much for music and deserves her place, the fact she's not rock'n'roll means nothing, she has rock'n'roll attitude and is a brilliant artist and performer. Every up and coming wannabe pop princess wants to be the new Madonna.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Mar 31, 2010 9:57:26 GMT -5
I just don't have a lot of respect for a rock and roll awards panel that leaves off the Monkees, for example, and lets Madonna in. They shouldn't have waited for the late 90s to bring Paul as solo artist in and Wings should be in before Jimmie Rogers, Ma Rainey, LaVern Baker, Jimmy Reed, Booker Table and the Matradees, Bill Monroe, Lloyd Price, The Staple Singers, Solomon Burke, Johnny Johnson, The Flamingos, Brenda Lee, Jim Stewart, Isaac Hayes, Benny Benjamin, Steve Douglas (My Three Sons?), Jann Wenner, Percy Sledge, Little Walter, Spooner Oldham, Wanda Jackson just for example. I really question their judgement. Its a very subjective and biased process. It's a joke, I haven't heard of any of them. In any case solo Paul should have been inducted at the same time as solo John, no question about it. She has done so much for music and deserves her place, She did a lot for the infant MTV at that time and place. Other than that, a forgettable artist who had nothing but "Material" on her godforsaken mind all along. Not even worth an honorable mention, let alone get in.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 31, 2010 11:33:37 GMT -5
. . . Madonna. She has done so much for music . . . Really, what has she done for MUSIC? Note "music." Look, I know she's a star. Yes, I know she has created a persona for herself that is iconically objectified (why one would want to be an object I don't know). But, musically? Nah. Who seriously does Madonna songs in the way people do Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Dylan, and other peoples' songs (and I'm not talking about tribute bands). Do people REALLY think that she is responsible for her music? Yeah, she has writing and production credit, but please. She has a team that most likely is responsible for 80% for how a song ultimately is conceived, molded, produced, and performed. She might even be like Dali (although never as creative as he was) who didn't create much in his later life. He just had people mimic him and then he signed them. I can imagine her just throwing out an idea, have her team create something, throws some vocals on it, and viola! A song. Look, I have a couple of Madonna albums. I love "Ray of Light", "Papa Don't Preach", and a handful of others. But, a music hall of fame? Nah. Icon Hall of Fame? Yes! American Culture Hall of Fame? You bet. I'm also not saying she is talentless. But, hall of fame worthy? No.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 31, 2010 16:20:01 GMT -5
. . . Madonna. She has done so much for music . . . Really, what has she done for MUSIC? Note "music." Look, I know she's a star. Yes, I know she has created a persona for herself that is iconically objectified (why one would want to be an object I don't know). But, musically? Nah. Who seriously does Madonna songs in the way people do Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Dylan, and other peoples' songs (and I'm not talking about tribute bands). Do people REALLY think that she is responsible for her music? Yeah, she has writing and production credit, but please. She has a team that most likely is responsible for 80% for how a song ultimately is conceived, molded, produced, and performed. She might even be like Dali (although never as creative as he was) who didn't create much in his later life. He just had people mimic him and then he signed them. I can imagine her just throwing out an idea, have her team create something, throws some vocals on it, and viola! A song. Look, I have a couple of Madonna albums. I love "Ray of Light", "Papa Don't Preach", and a handful of others. But, a music hall of fame? Nah. Icon Hall of Fame? Yes! American Culture Hall of Fame? You bet. I'm also not saying she is talentless. But, hall of fame worthy? No. Madonna is still the undisputed queen of pop to this day and from what I understand the biggest selling female artist of all time. How can those no-name groups on RTP's list qualify ahead of her ? As for her music, granted, she is not rock and her sociological importance, songwriting skills or recording innovations do not compare with the Beatles BUT she did have an effect on the future direction of music. Her first album although not huge emphasised modern R&B grooves when most groups were still using rock beats. She was the catalyst that changed music from being rock-centric to being dance and R&B-oriented. Her first two singles (“Everybody” and “Burning Up”) may have been lost on people because of the way they didn’t quite fit in with R&B or rock. Top 40 and MTV back then treated black music like a subgenre — not the backbone of 20th century American music, as it’s recognized now. With her music and videos, Madonna sliced away at genre straightjackets like a surgeon, opening the doors for the future hip-hop explosion. Combine that with her style, well Madonna defined much of what came out in 1980's. Given that she is still around and has made one great album after another there can be no argument against Madonna being in R&RHoF.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 31, 2010 18:08:52 GMT -5
I'm definitely with ursamajor on the Madonna thing.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 31, 2010 19:36:35 GMT -5
I just don't have a lot of respect for a rock and roll awards panel that leaves off the Monkees, for example, and lets Madonna in. They shouldn't have waited for the late 90s to bring Paul as solo artist in and Wings should be in before Jimmie Rogers, Ma Rainey, LaVern Baker, Jimmy Reed, Booker Table and the Matradees, Bill Monroe, Lloyd Price, The Staple Singers, Solomon Burke, Johnny Johnson, The Flamingos, Brenda Lee, Jim Stewart, Isaac Hayes, Benny Benjamin, Steve Douglas (My Three Sons?), Jann Wenner, Percy Sledge, Little Walter, Spooner Oldham, Wanda Jackson just for example. I really question their judgement. Its a very subjective and biased process. It's a joke, I haven't heard of any of them. In any case solo Paul should have been inducted at the same time as solo John, no question about it. I disagree about Madonna. She has done so much for music and deserves her place, the fact she's not rock'n'roll means nothing, she has rock'n'roll attitude and is a brilliant artist and performer. Every up and coming wannabe pop princess wants to be the new Madonna. I think Madonna certainly has some talent, but I like the Monkees and they should be in.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 31, 2010 19:43:51 GMT -5
So too must Paul, so I don't see why there'd be any objection to his appearing at a "cheezy awards show" for either of you! I just don't have a lot of respect for a rock and roll awards panel that leaves off the Monkees, for example, and lets Madonna in. They shouldn't have waited for the late 90s to bring Paul as solo artist in and Wings should be in before Jimmie Rogers, Ma Rainey, LaVern Baker, Jimmy Reed, Booker Table and the Matradees, Bill Monroe, Lloyd Price, The Staple Singers, Solomon Burke, Johnny Johnson, The Flamingos, Brenda Lee, Jim Stewart, Isaac Hayes, Benny Benjamin, Steve Douglas (My Three Sons?), Jann Wenner, Percy Sledge, Little Walter, Spooner Oldham, Wanda Jackson just for example. I really question their judgement. Its a very subjective and biased process. They will say they influenced other artists. I have never heard any rock and roll artist refer to any of these acts as an influence.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 31, 2010 21:33:58 GMT -5
It's a joke, I haven't heard of any of them. In any case solo Paul should have been inducted at the same time as solo John, no question about it. I disagree about Madonna. She has done so much for music and deserves her place, the fact she's not rock'n'roll means nothing, she has rock'n'roll attitude and is a brilliant artist and performer. Every up and coming wannabe pop princess wants to be the new Madonna. I think Madonna certainly has some talent, but I like the Monkees and they should be in. OldFred is probably going to go ballistic when he reads this but I cannot under any circumstance accept a HoF with the Monkees in it. It's a Hall of Fame, the best of the best, where your Michael Jordan's, Ronaldo's, Montana's, Iceman and Maverick's are held up as a benchmark of excellence in their chosen fields. The Monkees were just an average band, sure they had a couple of hit singles but should that qualify as entry into the most prestigious of organisations ? It will become a white elephant where anyone and everyone who had a hit or two becomes a HoFamer.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 1, 2010 0:31:10 GMT -5
In my opinion, Madonna had many catchy pop records (featuring her very average vocals) in 1983 to 1989. After that, everything is forgettable. She was embarrassing in the early to mid-90s, and has compromised most of her original image and style in order to stay popular since then.
I see no effect whatsoever that she's had on music. She resurrected post-disco pop for a few years, but not many followed her.
As for her celebrity-image and impact on pop culture, she basically set the women's movement back 20 years.
I say off with her head.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Apr 1, 2010 5:27:32 GMT -5
In my opinion, Madonna had many catchy pop records (featuring her very average vocals) in 1983 to 1989. After that, everything is forgettable. She was embarrassing in the early to mid-90s, and has compromised most of her original image and style in order to stay popular since then. I see no effect whatsoever that she's had on music. She resurrected post-disco pop for a few years, but not many followed her. As for her celebrity-image and impact on pop culture, she basically set the women's movement back 20 years. I say off with her head. Say that to my missus. I dare ya! Our household is clearly divided. Madonna and Kylie on one side and me and my likes one the other. Never the twain shall meet. Heaven help the kids!
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Apr 1, 2010 5:29:36 GMT -5
I think Madonna certainly has some talent, but I like the Monkees and they should be in. OldFred is probably going to go ballistic when he reads this but I cannot under any circumstance accept a HoF with the Monkees in it. It's a Hall of Fame, the best of the best, where your Michael Jordan's, Ronaldo's, Montana's, Iceman and Maverick's are held up as a benchmark of excellence in their chosen fields. The Monkees were just an average band, sure they had a couple of hit singles but should that qualify as entry into the most prestigious of organisations ? It will become a white elephant where anyone and everyone who had a hit or two becomes a HoFamer. Sorry but I don't buy into the Monkey's thing nor for that matter (ducking) The goddamn Partridge Family!
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Apr 1, 2010 5:32:15 GMT -5
It's a joke, I haven't heard of any of them. In any case solo Paul should have been inducted at the same time as solo John, no question about it. I disagree about Madonna. She has done so much for music and deserves her place, the fact she's not rock'n'roll means nothing, she has rock'n'roll attitude and is a brilliant artist and performer. Every up and coming wannabe pop princess wants to be the new Madonna. I think Madonna certainly has some talent, but I like the Monkees and they should be in. Madonna before the Monkeys. I don't see how there could be an argument. Oh my God.... Davy Jones is at my door with an axe!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 1, 2010 5:37:00 GMT -5
OldFred is probably going to go ballistic when he reads this but I cannot under any circumstance accept a HoF with the Monkees in it. It's a Hall of Fame, the best of the best, where your Michael Jordan's, Ronaldo's, Montana's, Iceman and Maverick's are held up as a benchmark of excellence in their chosen fields. The Monkees were just an average band, sure they had a couple of hit singles but should that qualify as entry into the most prestigious of organisations ? It will become a white elephant where anyone and everyone who had a hit or two becomes a HoFamer. But isn't that what the HoF has already become? It seems like anybody and everybody is pretty much getting in there. "Most prestigious of organizations"? Are you kidding? Maybe when the idea was first conceived... but not anymore; now, just about anything goes. We've talked about The Monkees before, and I feel they most certainly deserve to be included in the HoF. And in the case of the Monkees, they had more than "a hit or two", and their popularity eclipses many of the acts already inside the HoF ... like The Ventures, just for starters ("anyone who's had a hit or two" indeed!).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 1, 2010 5:39:02 GMT -5
Madonna before the Monkeys. I don't see how there could be an argument. How about age? The Monkees were there way ahead of Madonna, and it would be nice to induct certain members before they're all deceased. Both Joan Jett and her original band The Runaways belong in there - and soon. The Runaways opened doors for all-girl rock and roll garage bands, and Jett herself has lived and breathed the essence of Rock N Roll; she lives it, she is rock music personified - from when she was 15 til today at nearly 52.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Apr 1, 2010 6:05:05 GMT -5
OldFred is probably going to go ballistic when he reads this but I cannot under any circumstance accept a HoF with the Monkees in it. It's a Hall of Fame, the best of the best, where your Michael Jordan's, Ronaldo's, Montana's, Iceman and Maverick's are held up as a benchmark of excellence in their chosen fields. The Monkees were just an average band, sure they had a couple of hit singles but should that qualify as entry into the most prestigious of organisations ? It will become a white elephant where anyone and everyone who had a hit or two becomes a HoFamer. But isn't that what the HoF has already become? It seems like anybody and everybody is pretty much getting in there. "Most prestigious of organizations"? Are you kidding? Maybe when the idea was first conceived... but not anymore; now, just about anything goes. We've talked about The Monkees before, and I feel they most certainly deserve to be included in the HoF. And in the case of the Monkees, they had more than "a hit or two", and their popularity eclipses many of the acts already inside the HoF ... like The Ventures, just for starters ("anyone who's had a hit or two" indeed!). What Joe said. Whatever 'prestigeous' intentions the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame once espoused have gone by the way-side in the recent flock of nominees. If it was purely centered on just Rock & Roll, the credibility of the organization would still be intact. Nothing against the Rap artists nominated, but they should have been entered into their own Hall of Fame, while as mentioned, artists like the Ventures and those who had a huge impact in Rock like Brian Epstein are still not in. I've said before I felt The Monkees deserved to be in, they did have 5 Top Ten albums, four of them number one's and several number one singles, it's a documented fact that in 1967 alone they outsold the Beatles and Stones combined. Their TV show was an influence on Music Video, and they were the first band to use a Moog Synthesizer in a Rock record, plus other reasons they deserve inclusion. Michael Nesmith on his own deserves to be in the RRHOF for his contributions to Music Video and to Country Rock. Right now, with the state of the RRHOF being so unfocused on who gets in, and the Hall being such a political entity, I'm not so hot about the Monkees being in now since it looks like they'll let anyone in whether they represent Rock or not. It they get in, fine. If Jann Wenner keeps them out, not that big a deal.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Apr 1, 2010 15:47:04 GMT -5
Really, what has she done for MUSIC? Note "music." Look, I know she's a star. Yes, I know she has created a persona for herself that is iconically objectified (why one would want to be an object I don't know). But, musically? Nah. Who seriously does Madonna songs in the way people do Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Dylan, and other peoples' songs (and I'm not talking about tribute bands). Do people REALLY think that she is responsible for her music? Yeah, she has writing and production credit, but please. She has a team that most likely is responsible for 80% for how a song ultimately is conceived, molded, produced, and performed. She might even be like Dali (although never as creative as he was) who didn't create much in his later life. He just had people mimic him and then he signed them. I can imagine her just throwing out an idea, have her team create something, throws some vocals on it, and viola! A song. Look, I have a couple of Madonna albums. I love "Ray of Light", "Papa Don't Preach", and a handful of others. But, a music hall of fame? Nah. Icon Hall of Fame? Yes! American Culture Hall of Fame? You bet. I'm also not saying she is talentless. But, hall of fame worthy? No. Madonna is still the undisputed queen of pop to this day Lady Gaga has taken that throne. If Gaga was eligible, I'd vote her in ahead of Madonna. Gaga has impressed me more with two albums than Madonna has in her entire career. On the flip side, I like Madonna as an actress. Give her an Oscar and a lifetime achievement award instead of the H.O.F.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Apr 1, 2010 16:11:49 GMT -5
The Monkees deserve to be in there. Out of all the Beatles wannabes (and thats most of us, ain't it?) they were the best. Though John Lennon (who was a Monkees fan) more accurately compared them to the Marx Brothers than the Beatles.
|
|