|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 10, 2021 14:12:05 GMT
Carole King is NOT in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 10, 2021 14:16:24 GMT
Carole King is NOT in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame? Huh? I'm 99% sure she's in a song writer. But, if not, she's a long list of very deserving artists who seem doomed to be passed over.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 10, 2021 14:31:55 GMT
Carole King is NOT in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame? Huh? I'm 99% sure she's in a song writer. But, if not, she's a long list of very deserving artists who seem doomed to be passed over. Just did a quick Wikipedia check...In 1990, Carole King along with Gerry Goffin was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame in the non-performer/songwriting category.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 10, 2021 14:40:08 GMT
I thought so.
I honestly think the Rock and Roll HOF knows exactly what they're doing, and they're basically trolling rock fans at the expense of some of the artists. They know that the Eddie Trucks of the world will go on long rants about how the RNRHOF got it wrong AGAIN, and the Hall will trend as the artists and blurbs get passed around (you know, like I'm doing here).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 10, 2021 14:52:04 GMT
I think--just painting in broad strokes--the issue is that the founders were of the first generation that grew up with and out of rock and roll.
So they honored their forefathers (e.g. the Chuck Berry and Little Richard types), they honored their initial heroes (e.g. the Dylan, Beatles types), but then their interests as adults in contemporary music lay mostly in softer, "adult" fare. Singer-songwriters, etc., felt more grown-up and respectable. So that generation of (often harder) rock, be it heavy stuff like Sabbath or what became more classic rock like Zeppelin, Bad Company, Deep Purple, etc., simply was dismissed as passe or childish just because it came at the wrong time for those people.
Eventually they were heavily criticized for being the "old white guys" that they were, but their forays into more diverse music were so much later that they STILL skipped over that same era of music, as well as its immediate successors like NWOBHM and American glam / hair metal. Instead they just went into pop, RnB, and rap.
In short, the first inductees were what they actually liked and wanted in; the latter ones are what they feel obligated to include. And somehow everyone seem pleased as punch to leave out what came in between. (In a way, that makes sense, because neither the decision-makers nor included artists don't come from that roughly GenX era of musicians being excluded, but rather before and after.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 10, 2021 15:24:05 GMT
I think--just painting in broad strokes--the issue is that the founders were of the first generation that grew up with and out of rock and roll.
So they honored their forefathers (e.g. the Chuck Berry and Little Richard types), they honored their initial heroes (e.g. the Dylan, Beatles types), but then their interests as adults in contemporary music lay mostly in softer, "adult" fare. Singer-songwriters, etc., felt more grown-up and respectable. So that generation of (often harder) rock, be it heavy stuff like Sabbath or what became more classic rock like Zeppelin, Bad Company, Deep Purple, etc., simply was dismissed as passe or childish just because it came at the wrong time for those people.
Eventually they were heavily criticized for being the "old white guys" that they were, but their forays into more diverse music were so much later that they STILL skipped over that same era of music, as well as its immediate successors like NWOBHM and American glam / hair metal. Instead they just went into pop, RnB, and rap.
In short, the first inductees were what they actually liked and wanted in; the latter ones are what they feel obligated to include. And somehow everyone seem pleased as punch to leave out what came in between. (In a way, that makes sense, because neither the decision-makers nor included artists don't come from that roughly GenX era of musicians being excluded, but rather before and after.)
I agree with this take, but I also think they go out of their way to include or nominate artists who were critical darlings (which makes sense since the whole thing is run by Jann Wenner). I also think one of the big issues is the lack of any real criteria other than a 25+ year old debut. Sales? No, or else Boston would be in. Influence? Where's Thin Lizzy. Fuck, you don't even have to be rock and roll.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 10, 2021 18:56:02 GMT
It's hard to be a saint in the city...
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2021 16:27:05 GMT
Like her or not, nobody can call Taylor Swift lazy. She released two albums in 2020 and said she was also going to re-record all of the albums for which the master tapes had been sold to an investment firm against her wishes.
Prince threatened the whole re-recording thing, too, but only ever released one song: "1999" (in that year). If nothing else, Swift is at least making good on the promise/threat.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 11, 2021 17:28:24 GMT
It's hard to be a saint in the city...
In a follow-up to this, Jeep is now pulling Springsteen's ads:
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 17:34:50 GMT
Like her or not, nobody can call Taylor Swift lazy. She released two albums in 2020 and said she was also going to re-record all of the albums for which the master tapes had been sold to an investment firm against her wishes.
Prince threatened the whole re-recording thing, too, but only ever released one song: "1999" (in that year). If nothing else, Swift is at least making good on the promise/threat.
Wow, I've heard of individual songs being re-recorded over rights issues, but I can't think of instances of complete albums being redone. I'm not sure how to take that. On one hand, good for her from a fiscal sense. On the other hand, it's an odd situation for fans. Do you buy the version 2.0 albums? I know if an artist I followed did something similar, I'd be very hesitant.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2021 17:40:44 GMT
It is also interesting as to whether she will be faithful to the originals or reimagine them. Her early albums were country, right? And then since like 2012 or whatever she has been full-on pop (heavy on synths, programmed beats, etc.), totally different styles.
If I were a big fan, I would probably be more interested in reimagined versions than faithful recreations ... unless I was SUCH a super-fan that I wanted to "be on her side" and "stand up to the label" or whatever. (I'm not a big enough fan to do either in this case. I don't know any of those songs or have all that much interest.)
EDIT - I guess one example would be Twisted Sister with Still Hungry or whatever they called it, right?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 17:55:12 GMT
It is also interesting as to whether she will be faithful to the originals or reimagine them. Her early albums were country, right? And then since like 2012 or whatever she has been full-on pop (heavy on synths, programmed beats, etc.), totally different styles.
If I were a big fan, I would probably be more interested in reimagined versions than faithful recreations ... unless I was SUCH a super-fan that I wanted to "be on her side" and "stand up to the label" or whatever. (I'm not a big enough fan to do either in this case. I don't know any of those songs or have all that much interest.)
EDIT - I guess one example would be Twisted Sister with Still Hungry or whatever they called it, right?
I forgot about that. I think that album was called Stay Hungry. Apparently LA Guns re-did Cocked and Loaded as Cocked and Re-loaded in 2000. So, there are examples that I've ignored. I also remember in the early 00s, Anthrax re-recorded a bunch of their Joey Belladonna classic era songs with their at the time current lineup with John Bush on vocals, and released an album called The Greater of Two Evils in 2004, seemingly in an effort to sell fans of the classic era on the current lineup........just to have the classic era band reunite the following year.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2021 17:59:46 GMT
I think that album was called Stay Hungry. I think the kid has been keeping you up nights or something, because I know you know better! The original classic, 1984 album was Stay Hungry! (The 2004 remake was indeed Still Hungry. I just listened to it once a year or two ago and found it a total waste of time, for the record.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 18:04:51 GMT
I think that album was called Stay Hungry. I think the kid has been keeping you up nights or something, because I know you know better! The original classic, 1984 album was Stay Hungry! (The 2004 remake was indeed Still Hungry. I just listened to it once a year or two ago and found it a total waste of time, for the record.)
You're right, I flip flopped them in my brain. I never listened to Still Hungry.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 12, 2021 13:32:36 GMT
Like her or not, nobody can call Taylor Swift lazy. She released two albums in 2020 and said she was also going to re-record all of the albums for which the master tapes had been sold to an investment firm against her wishes.
Prince threatened the whole re-recording thing, too, but only ever released one song: "1999" (in that year). If nothing else, Swift is at least making good on the promise/threat.
Taylor Swift Presents Fearless.
|
|