I didn't even think about country artists...so Johnny Cash is in, but Willie Nelson isn't? That's ridiculous.

A lot of those older outlaw country artists were more rock'n'roll than most rock stars.

Quote
keefriff99
And I'm assuming that's not the John Sykes from Whitesnake, lol.

. . . Who was also in Thin Lizzy....

Quote
Hairball
And with Nirvana having only three proper studio albums - with the first (Bleach) going practically unnoticed initially and not even charting- the amount and quality of work just isn't there.

Jimi Hendrix has only three proper studio albums...

Quote
Boognish

Quote
Hairball
And with Nirvana having only three proper studio albums - with the first (Bleach) going practically unnoticed initially and not even charting- the amount and quality of work just isn't there.

Jimi Hendrix has only three proper studio albums...

Its an argument that ain't gonna go anywhere.

Harry Nilsson's also not in the rock and roll hall of fame which is insane.

Same with Steve Winwood, Phish. Blue Oyster Cult, The Runaways (I know Joan Jett and the Blackhearts are in), Los Lobos, The Meters, Primus, The Radiators, X, Janes Addiction, Joe Cocker, War, The Go Go's, Procol Harum, Captain Beefheart, Jethro Tull, Link Wray, The New York Dolls, Iron Maiden, Gram Parsons to name a few. These are all Rock & Roll (some I like, many I don't) and worthy of debate. Whitney Houston is not. Its a farce.

Quote
Boognish

Quote
Hairball
And with Nirvana having only three proper studio albums - with the first (Bleach) going practically unnoticed initially and not even charting- the amount and quality of work just isn't there.

Jimi Hendrix has only three proper studio albums...

And he's no John Lennon of his generation either which was the point in question in the original post.
Hendrix was great and Cobain was great, but they were what they were.

That said, I think Hendrix transcended age barriers, generation gaps, and musical genres with his innovative guitar playing while Cobain/Nirvana were mostly fawned over by people of a particular niche. In other words,
Hendrix's lasting influence as a guitar player is stronger and longer lasting than what Cobain/Nirvana's albums are today. Just my personal opinion, and unlike keefriff99, I wasn't still in high school to see girls crying when he killed himself.
Whatever the case, it was sad and ultimately seemed a huge waste, but evidently he had some major demons he couldn't deal with.

Quote
keefriff99
I don't think Fricke is way off in his analogy. No one is claiming that Nirvana was as big as the Beatles...no one WOULD ever make a claim like that. He was simply saying that it was a major artistic death for that generation.

He seems to be saying a bit more than that in the video posted by rollingfreak [www.youtube.com] "I think he was the closest that his generation came to a John Lennon" and then goes on to make comparisons.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
daspyknows
Same with Steve Winwood, Phish. Blue Oyster Cult, The Runaways (I know Joan Jett and the Blackhearts are in), Los Lobos, The Meters, Primus, The Radiators, X, Janes Addiction, Joe Cocker, War, The Go Go's, Procol Harum, Captain Beefheart, Jethro Tull, Link Wray, The New York Dolls, Iron Maiden, Gram Parsons to name a few. These are all Rock & Roll (some I like, many I don't) and worthy of debate. Whitney Houston is not. Its a farce.

This was a listed I posted way back in 2010 (with 14 people who have been taken off since they've gotten inducted in the 10 years):

Badfinger
Boston
George Thorogood
Grand Funk Railroad
Harry Nilsson
Iron Maiden
Jethro Tull
Joe Cocker
Meat Loaf
The Monkees
Ozzy Osbourne (in for Black Sabbath but I think he should probably be in alone as well)
Peter Frampton
Squeeze
Steppenwolf
T. Rex (on the ballot this year)
Whitesnake

This list had a lot more big names like Rush, KISS, Yes, Moody Blues, Deep Purple, and many more when it was initially written, but still a lot of people that have been unfairly passed over. Similar to daisy, I don't think all of these people should go in, but I think a discussion could be made for all of them. To me, the clearest oversights that need to be rectified ASAP are:

Iron Maiden
Judas Priest
Harry Nilsson
Ozzy Osbourne

And then I'd have to wrestle with my case of whether Jethro Tull and Joe Cocker are deserved. Loved them both, but to me they were just under the notch of excellent or consistent or influential enough to make it in. Wouldn't be upset over who the current crop is, but if we were still doing best of the best I don't think they'd make it. I think those other 4 are deserving of best of the best though.

Ozzy solo before Jethro Tull?

lol....

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 18:33 by Hairball.

That's the first-ever heavy metal Grammy-winning Jethro Tull, mind you.

Quote
daspyknows
Same with Steve Winwood, Phish. Blue Oyster Cult, The Runaways (I know Joan Jett and the Blackhearts are in), Los Lobos, The Meters, Primus, The Radiators, X, Janes Addiction, Joe Cocker, War, The Go Go's, Procol Harum, Captain Beefheart, Jethro Tull, Link Wray, The New York Dolls, Iron Maiden, Gram Parsons to name a few. These are all Rock & Roll (some I like, many I don't) and worthy of debate. Whitney Houston is not. Its a farce.

Amazingly screwed up to see some of these bands/artists aren't in, and while some are debatable, all are more deserved in a "ROCK" hall of fame than Whitney, Madonna, various rappers, and other non-rock artists.
They really should induct more pioneers as there's plenty of them - from country, blues, etc., etc., etc., but instead they dilute the entire thing with artists that have nothing to so with rock and roll whatsoever.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
keefriff99
That's the first-ever heavy metal Grammy-winning Jethro Tull, mind you.

I remember the controversy which goes to show the Grammys were screwed up before the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

But to repost this tidbit, Sean Murphy of Popmatters gives many reasons why they should be in: Jethro Tull

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
Ozzy solo before Jethro Tull?

lol....

We don't speak, you know the agreement. Don't bait.

I have a complicated relationship with Ozzy.

Of course I love Black Sabbath and a lot of his solo career, but he got to the top by Sharon enlisting A-list musical talent to write all his material, and then screwed them out of writing royalties whenever possible.

Bob Daisley, Lee Kerslake, Phil Soussan...the list is very long. The record industry is a dirty business, and Sharon learned well from her father, Don Arden, but she took ruthlessness to a level I'm not comfortable with.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Hairball
Ozzy solo before Jethro Tull?

lol....

We don't speak, you know the agreement. Don't bait.

Lol...sounds like kindergarten, but seems you already breached agreement and baited by sticking your nose in a post between boognish and I - "Its an argument that ain't gonna go anywhere".

Ozzy solo before Jethro Tull..,would love to hear the rationale behind that logic, but then again would probably be more billowing hot air.
I like Ozzy, but before Jethro Tull?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 19:19 by Hairball.

Quote
keefriff99
I have a complicated relationship with Ozzy.

Of course I love Black Sabbath and a lot of his solo career, but he got to the top by Sharon enlisting A-list musical talent to write all his material, and then screwed them out of writing royalties whenever possible.

Bob Daisley, Lee Kerslake, Phil Soussan...the list is very long. The record industry is a dirty business, and Sharon learned well from her father, Don Arden, but she took ruthlessness to a level I'm not comfortable with.

Black Sabbath is deservedly in, but it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't based on all the other bands that aren't. But Ozzy solo? Hmmm...first two solo albums were good, but after that hit or miss. And while he was influential due to his work with Sabbath, not so sure how influential his solo work is. Unless you count Randy Rhoads' guitar playing which influenced millions of young shredders, but there were other guitar "Gods" who were just as influential if not more.
Anyhow, it's laughable to think Ozzy should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame based on his solo career, especially at the cost of many other bands who are way more qualified and/or influential.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Like any band, its a matter of personal opinion. To me, Jethro Tull just doesn't belong if we're talking a true hall. If we're talking The Hall Of Very Good, which is what its become with bands like Cheap Trick, Journey, etc (again, all bands I like), thats fine. But year in and year out I still judge the Hall on who should ACTUALLY be there. Yes I'd nominate Jethro Tull based on who goes in now but I would never nominate them for a true Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame.

I think Aqualung is a note perfect album. Seriously, I can't fault it all and I love it so so much. Just below it, I'd put Stand Up, which is equally brilliant and sometimes the album I prefer. After that, I think it gets very dicey with Jethro Tull. Listen, I love em on the Rock And Roll Circus show. The fist album This Was with Mick Abrahams and their third album Benefit are very good. I don't consider them nearly the level of Stand Up and Aqualung, but they are good. Then you get Thick As A Brick. Personally, I think its fine. I also think its the last thing I even found remotely listenable by them. They then went into Passion Play, then different kind of stuff with War Child and that era. Nothing all too memorable from there. Really anything but Bungle In The Jungle?

So to me, Jethro Tull is 1968-1972. Thats 4 years time of consistent output, only two of which I'd argue are genuinely brilliant albums that stand up (no pun intended) with anything else from that time. To ME, that is not really enough to make a Hall Of Fame band. Yes, they had the flute, Martin Barre is an excellent guitar player, the band through that period is extremely solid. I still don't think thats enough of a memorable output to qualify you with the likes of Gods (our Stones included) and I don't really hear many cite them as an influence. Again, its not meant as an insult, but I just think thats why Jehtro Tull is very good, but not Hall Of Fame quality. There are many very good bands, and you wouldn't honor every single one of them to be the best. Frankly, and again not super seriously, but I'd consider it an insult to put them up against the Stones, who had MANY years of greatness and countless incredible albums and still play stadiums today. Even if the Stones were JUST 1968-1972 and you had those 4 golden albums, at least every ONE was note perfect all the way through. Jethro Tull, I just don't think you can say that, and I don't mean to purposely keep them out or hold anything against them. I think they are great. But I think if it was an honest summation, they would not pass the test for me.

Thats about as honest as I can get. And I really don't think any of that is misguided, and I'd certainly welcome a discussion about why they truly are of quality. I need to read the article posted. Whereas, very shortly, I think Ozzy Osbourne did a lot with his solo career. He had hits on almost every album, major talent surrounding him, a ruthless manager yes, but he's still around today and many of his solo songs are legendary. I think he did the impossible and broke off from his very successful band and did something wholly independent and memorable on his own. In the vein of Peter Gabriel, Sting, Lou Reed (who by the way it took him DYING for the Hall to acknowledge him which was insane). I truly don't think I'm biased in thinking that his solo career, to me, makes for a more decent argument than Jethro Tull. Again, I welcome the discussion. Its a fun topic to debate, but I just feel for many its hard for people to discuss it without enormous bias.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 21:11 by SomeGuy.

Fair enough RollingFreak, and you're right it is a matter of personal opinion. There's also many other factors including one's age, along with when (and where) they grew up, etc.

Just a few comments:

Quote
RollingFreak
I need to read the article posted

Here it is again - Jethro Tull , and he makes a better case than I have time to do right now: Maybe he'll sway your opinion, or maybe not.
One standout quote amongst many, he says: "So should we shed tears for a group that has moved more than 60 million units, played to packed (if steadily smaller) audiences for almost five decades, still receives substantial radio play and is generally recognized for making at least two seminal albums in rock history? Not necessarily. Let it simply be stated, without equivocation, that Ian Anderson is one of the more intelligent, capable and, for a run as long as any other icon, consistent frontman in music."

Quote
RollingFreak
So to me, Jethro Tull is 1968-1972. That's 4 years time of consistent output

That's about the same as Hendrix and Nirvana's entire recording career, and both of those artists weren't 100% consistently great.
While Jethro Tull might not have made as big as an impact or had as big of an influence as those two, they certainly have matched a certain criteria that many other bands who have been inducted have.

Quote
RollinFreak
I think Ozzy Osbourne did a lot with his solo career. He had hits on almost every album, major talent surrounding him, a ruthless manager yes, but he's still around today and many of his solo songs are legendary.

I've always liked Ozzy - especially the early Sabbath albums, and his first two solo albums. I even liked Bark at the Moon (the song) as well as many other solo tunes of his throughout his solo career. I even like his new duet with Elton John!
I just don't see his solo career as having any sort of major impact or influence apart from what he already was - a great singer in the heavy rock genre. Peter Gabriel, Lou Reed, and Sting evolved away from their former bands with great success, while Ozzy sort of remained true to what already worked for him - there was nothing really groundbreaking imo. Peter Gabriel is in both with Genesis and solo, as is Lou Reed with Velvet Underground and solo, yet Sting is only in as a member of the Police.
In that sense, Ozzy is like the Sting of hard rock - he made a huge impact with his original group, but after that he sort of cruised along doing what he's always done. That said, have to say I'm surprised Sting isn't in as solo - he's had a mind boggling successful solo career winning awards left and right throughout the years (way more than Ozzy), though I only know one or two solo tunes of his - Set Them Free and the other one with Stevie Wonder on harmonica - Beautiful Day I think it's called.
Maybe Ozzy's stint on his reality show will take him over the edge and finally get him in the Hall of Fame - that show reached way more people than his solo catalogue ever has.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-17 01:04 by Hairball.

Jethro Tull should have been in before Billy freakin' Joel. Before Ricky Nelson. Before The Band. Before Del Shannon. Before Bonnie Raitt. Before Brenda Lee. Before Gene Pitney. Before Madonna. Before ABBA. Before Alice Cooper. Before the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Before Donna Summer. Before Kiss. Before Cheap Trick. Before Journey. Before Janet Jackson. Before Depeche Mode. Whitney and Nine Inch Nails.

Easy ones for me:

[*] Motörhead
[*] Todd Rundgren
[*] Soundgarden

I'd also allow The Doobie Brothers.

Quote
Hairball
Fair enough RollingFreak, and you're right it is a matter of personal opinion. There's also many other factors including one's age, along with when (and where) they grew up, etc.

Just a few comments:

Quote
RollingFreak
I need to read the article posted

Here it is again - Jethro Tull , and he makes a better case than I have time to do right now: Maybe he'll sway your opinion, or maybe not.
One standout quote amongst many, he says: "So should we shed tears for a group that has moved more than 60 million units, played to packed (if steadily smaller) audiences for almost five decades, still receives substantial radio play and is generally recognized for making at least two seminal albums in rock history? Not necessarily. Let it simply be stated, without equivocation, that Ian Anderson is one of the more intelligent, capable and, for a run as long as any other icon, consistent frontman in music."

Quote
RollingFreak
So to me, Jethro Tull is 1968-1972. That's 4 years time of consistent output

That's about the same as Hendrix and Nirvana's entire recording career, and both of those artists weren't 100% consistently great.
While Jethro Tull might not have made as big as an impact or had as big of an influence as those two, they certainly have matched a certain criteria that many other bands who have been inducted have.

Quote
RollinFreak
I think Ozzy Osbourne did a lot with his solo career. He had hits on almost every album, major talent surrounding him, a ruthless manager yes, but he's still around today and many of his solo songs are legendary.

I've always liked Ozzy - especially the early Sabbath albums, and his first two solo albums. I even liked Bark at the Moon (the song) as well as many other solo tunes of his throughout his solo career. I even like his new duet with Elton John!
I just don't see his solo career as having any sort of major impact or influence apart from what he already was - a great singer in the heavy rock genre. Peter Gabriel, Lou Reed, and Sting evolved away from their former bands with great success, while Ozzy sort of remained true to what already worked for him - there was nothing really groundbreaking imo. Peter Gabriel is in both with Genesis and solo, as is Lou Reed with Velvet Underground and solo, yet Sting is only in as a member of the Police.
In that sense, Ozzy is like the Sting of hard rock - he made a huge impact with his original group, but after that he sort of cruised along doing what he's always done. That said, have to say I'm surprised Sting isn't in as solo - he's had a mind boggling successful solo career winning awards left and right throughout the years (way more than Ozzy), though I only know one or two solo tunes of his - Set Them Free and the other one with Stevie Wonder on harmonica - Beautiful Day I think it's called.
Maybe Ozzy's stint on his reality show will take him over the edge and finally get him in the Hall of Fame - that show reached way more people than his solo catalogue ever has.

Love everything that you said there. Hard for me to argue with any of that. Points well taken and personally I think thats a more intelligent discussion than I can imagine the Rock Hall having in the last 15 years with nominations.

Hold on a minute - let's not get too cozy and comfy here! lol

Still think J.Geils Band should be in as well - anyone who has seen them live would agree they should have been inducted years ago.

For years I was baffled that Deep Purple weren't in, but eventually they were.
Even though the Hall is a complete joke, I'll continue to be baffled that Jethro Tull and J.Geils Band aren't in, and eventually some day maybe they will be.
When Donna summer, and Green Day are in, while those two bands aren't - something's definitely wrong

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

i think we are getting close to the point where they need to start talking about nick cave & the bad seeds. huge & consistently great body of work. nick is on a nice arc now with his popularity growing & getting more recognition. & he is still putting out great new music. i'm a dreamer...

Quote
RollingFreak
Harry Nilsson's also not in the rock and roll hall of fame which is insane.

I agree. The only reason I can think of why he's not in there is because he didn't play concerts and tour, which is a silly reason.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-17 17:13 by Boognish.

Link Wray
Dick Dale

These guys were more rock 'n' roll than most people in there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-18 20:26 by boogaloojef.

Quote
Boognish

Quote
RollingFreak
Harry Nilsson's also not in the rock and roll hall of fame which is insane.

I agree. The only reason I can think of why he's not in there is because he didn't play concerts and tour, which is a silly reason.

I think it's a little more than that. Maybe it's the first line of the first song on Sandman, "I'll Take A Tango" where he sings, "Deep down in my soul, I hate rock and roll..."

[www.youtube.com]


But similar sentiments didn't keep them from inducting Nat King Cole

[www.youtube.com]

Although I distinctly recall Natalie Cole looking bewildered when she was there for her father's induction as an "influence."


Harry's early songwriting for The Monkees and Three Dog Night and his own breakthrough hit--the cover of Fred Neil's "Everybody's Talkin'" have been placed by the Musical Border Patrol as achievements in the "Pop" realm (which after Madonna/Abba/Whitney shouldn't make any difference). Radio ads for Nilsson Schilsson pointed out that Harry Nilsson has recorded a ROCK album, so maybe that's the start.

But he was in fact, brilliant. (If you don't have his timeless 1977 Knnillssonn album--which isn't rock and roll--GET IT!) And he's belonged in that Hall for a long, long time now. Anybody that was called their "favorite group" by the Beatles deserves some respect and consideration.

His participation in Lennon's so called "Lost Weekend" hijinks might have something to do with it. He once said something like, "Boy, you get one Beatle drunk..." or something to that effect. If he was a bad influence, in the end, I think Harry was the one who sustained the most damage.


As a fan, my feelings about this to the RnR HoF can best be described by quoting Harry: "You're breaking my heart / You're tearing it apart / So F--- Y--!!"

Quote
Hairball
Hold on a minute - let's not get too cozy and comfy here! lol

Still think J.Geils Band should be in as well - anyone who has seen them live would agree they should have been inducted years ago.

For years I was baffled that Deep Purple weren't in, but eventually they were.
Even though the Hall is a complete joke, I'll continue to be baffled that Jethro Tull and J.Geils Band aren't in, and eventually some day maybe they will be.
When Donna summer, and Green Day are in, while those two bands aren't - something's definitely wrong

I'm convinced the HOF loves negative publicity. Had to get my Geils fix last night. This is very good.

Groovy Movies: J. Geils Band Live @ The Boston Garden 1979 (Pt. 2 of 3)

[www.youtube.com]