25 Worst Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees: Cleveland.com article

All sounds right to be except for Jeff Beck who deserves to be in. Either way the choice in who's in seem to be based pretty much on media exposure rather than musical quality. Like Ben E King who has one big hit played everywhere for decades but he wasn't that great compared to other soul men and women

 

It depends on the influence and quality of a small body of work. Plenty of the artists that are in there are only there because of a short period of their career anyway.

 

I don't think of Fleetwood Mac as being a particularly influential band. They did their thing, and it was great and sold a shedload of records, but influential?

 

I've heard this "the Moody Blues are pretentious" argument for decades now. It's nonsense. As Rolling Stone wrote in an article many years ago, "The Moody Blues are about as pretentious as meat and potatoes". That quote stuck with me all these years because it's true. Also, want's wrong with orchestration? The Beatles and Brian Wilson used it and so many Rock acts that followed used it as well.

I understand you don't like them; that's fine. Opinions are subjective. But saying they aren't a good band because of this or that, is a declarative statement and not true because history has shown otherwise. Their sound ushered in a whole genre called Progressive and Psychedelic Rock and many bands followed their lead.

Being a pioneer in one's field must account for something. But at this point, I feel you are arguing for argument's sake.

 

More 20-20 hindsight praise for Nick Drake. Meanwhile at the time he was making records, I never heard of him or his music. Now because he is yet another tragic figure whose music turns up in films like Garden State and TV commercials, he is some kind of legendary musical influence? I don't think so.

Did I miss the part of the article where they suggested Big Star over some other inductee?

 

I agree, to an extent. The most massively influential artists with short careers could be there, IMO. But I don't consider NYD or Small Face/Faces to be among them.

 

But it *was* influential - just didn't happen in the '70s.

And it was really good music anyway.

 

Gee...any idea why Stevie Nicks is in the Hall of Fame?...anyone have any idea?...hey Mr Iovine in the corner there...any idea why?...

 

I'll give ya Roxy Music & the Faces.

 

Ringo is in a different league. Arguably one of the most influential rock drummers of all time from perhaps the greatest band.

Stevie Nicks was an important member of an important band.

 

I know I’m feeding the troll but the inclusion of Butterfield on this list is outrageous

Agree about Crimson and Maiden needing to be in there, though, among many others

 

Ringo was an important member of an important band.

 

Right, he is....and he's in with that band. But he's in on his own in a side category and not for his solo career.

 

The explanation is straight forward. The critics think they are cr@p. Next!

 

Ringo did nothing outside of The Beatles that merits a separate induction.

 

Here is the description of the category he is inducted in, per wikipedia.

Award for Musical Excellence

This category, which replaced sidemen, "honors those musicians, producers and others who have spent their careers out of the spotlight working with major artists on various parts of their recording and live careers."

 

hey! back off boogaloo!

 

So which part of this was he inducted for?

 

Aren't most of his hits originals, albeit written by other people?

 

I don't think it's this simple. King Crimson's problem, historically, has been a lack of popularity and notoriety - as well as the primary influence being on a genre that the Hall was not that interested in. It's Iron Maiden that they think is crap (and I very much agree - all their music is childish garbage).

 

And yet somehow The Clovers are still not in.

 

She gets serious extra credit for longevity and ability to appeal to a broad range of fans. I don't know why she is so popular, but I saw her perform at Hyde Park with Rod Stewart a few years back, and it seemed that a large percentage of the 50,000 or so people were there to see her, and many were young girl and women in their early 20's. She seems to have established a younger fan base that probably you and I know nothing about. That in itself is rare and quite impressive. She also recently toured arenas solo, easily the only member of Fleetwood Mac capable of doing so, and probably the only female artist of her generation still capable of doing so. I don't know . . . I saw her perform at this year's RR Hall of Fame, she did "Stand Back", brought out Don Henley for "Leather & Lace", did "Stop Dragging My Heart Around" with Harry Styles and closed with "Edge of Seventeen", with Waddy Wachtel wailing away on guitar - I thought that she was pretty great for 71.

 

I've officially stopped caring about these questions. It's virtually impossible to quantify influence and impact here--it's too subjective. If you really care about psychedelia and progressive rock, a band like the Moody Blues were undoubtedly important--and they sold plenty of records back in the day too--but if that isn't your scene, naturally, one might dismiss them, so it all depends on your frame of reference. I can think of plenty of bands that I dearly love who weren't big enough to merit induction, while I can also think of bands that I dislike who probably deserve it. It's just not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

 

Exactly. People who don't know or care much about the history of rock and roll crap all over the Hall. But to me, honoring pioneering artists and those instrumentalists that most have never even heard of makes it all worth it. Man, that moment when Johnnie Johnson and James Burton got their moment in the sun in front of their families - priceless.

 

According the Hall of Fame, the most important criterion is musical excellence, not influence. So... it's subjective.