Red Mosquito

Jesus, even the building itself is horrifying:

Haha, I love you spenno.

Backatcha, Ruddo.

Look, call it the "popular music hall of fame", no problem.

Tuolumne wrote:Ever see Kendrick Lamar perform in front of a live band? It's a dude performing syncopated rhymes over a drum beat and a guitar playing, I don't see how that's much different than Bob Dylan's style of music except the color of his skin. It's all Rock n Roll. It all originates from either Blues or Folk.

I wouldn't induct Bob Dylan either.

I feel like some of you guys are confusing this with a value judgement but that's not what I was shooting for - great swathes of the music I enjoy doesn't fall within these narrow parameters and there's tons of "rock music" (by this rough definition) that I think sucks.

Kevin Davis wrote:I think not considering Bruce Springsteen a rock artist is clearly the product of either bias or sheer unfamiliarity.

When it comes to Bruce Springsteen, I have a degree of both.

Now w'ere just veering into Trumpian ignorance for the sake of people holding onto whatever their original assumptions were. The term Rock n Roll is not some nebulous thing. It was very clear what it meant when it was coined and championed by the FIRST (and I can't stress this enough) group of rock n rollers ie Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Fats Domino, Elvis, etc. The guys who were in the FIRST (again, can't stress this enough) HOF class. The guys who COMBINED blues, soul, R&B, country, and pop songwriting w/ guitars before they all broke away into various refined sub-genres. It's comical to think it's some sorta flimsy definition. Don't study your beliefs of what you think it is, study the actual roots of the art form. It's silly that this is so debatable now, but I guess that's the nature of history. People remember and acknowledge what they want instead of actual historical facts.

Your idea of Rock n Roll seems to be "rock" music. And that's great. Problem is we are talking about the actual Rock n Roll HOF institution, so we gotta get into the semantics here of how that encompasses all the sub-genres considered to be a part of Rock n Roll cause that's sort of what this thread is all about.

Oh shit, he/she played the Trump card.

Some of us understand, brother.

You can't teach an old (white) dog new tricks.

We mustn't forget that there is also the "n roll" part

Who are you all even talking too?

No rappers please. Rap is crap.

Bi_3 wrote:Who are you all even talking too?

If you have to ask...

Me. Someone who is not a white dude.

Tuolumne wrote:Me. Someone who is not a white dude.

I 100% have your back on this.

Kaius wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Who are you all even talking too?

If you have to ask...

I do because no one seems to be actually disagreeing with T's preachy, but accurate series of mini rants.

What popular American music doesn't fit the Hall? I'd say country, but most radio country these days is just watered down dad rock.

Josh Groban? but that dude is metal as fuck.

I can see I've shut down all other opinions on the subject with my devastating truth bomb. Burt wins again.

BurtReynolds wrote:Josh Groban? but that dude is metal as fuck.

According to wikipedia he's dated January Jones and Kat Dennings. Way to go, Grobes.

Tuolumne wrote:Don't study your beliefs of what you think it is, study the actual roots of the art form. It's silly that this is so debatable now, but I guess that's the nature of history. People remember and acknowledge what they want instead of actual historical facts.

Please shoot me if I ever develop an appreciation of music based on received wisdom and antiseptic acknowledgement of whatever rock historians think is important; the kind of musical taste that says "well, maybe this isn't for me, but obviously it has some merit - I guess I'll keep listening to Bruce Springsteen/Bob Dylan/REO Speedwagon/whatever until it clicks".

It's a substitution of your own personal aesthetic for a bunch of Rolling Stone list articles.

Tuolumne wrote:Problem is we are talking about the actual Rock n Roll HOF institution, so we gotta get into the semantics here of how that encompasses all the sub-genres considered to be a part of Rock n Roll cause that's sort of what this thread is all about.

Luckily for you, nobody at the RnRHoF gives two hoots about what I think.

Birds in Hell wrote:Please shoot me if I ever develop an appreciation of music based on received wisdom and antiseptic acknowledgement of whatever rock historians think is important; the kind of musical taste that says "well, maybe this isn't for me, but obviously it has some merit - I guess I'll keep listening to Bruce Springsteen/Bob Dylan/REO Speedwagon/whatever until it clicks."

I really don't think he's suggesting anything of the sort in regards to your personal preferences so much as he is suggesting that personal taste does not dictate categorization in some (many) cases. I don't care what anyone's "taste" says -- Bruce Springsteen is a rock musician. His music may have other flavors, and he has dabbled in full in some other genres (mainly folk), but still -- rock musician. I'm not sure history is written exactly as Tuolumne says but his underlying point is sound.