Rock Hall: Mellencamp, not Rush. I give up.

The last 15 years of Metallica has been BRUUUUU--TAALLL. Even half the shit on the Black album sucks my balls. And this is coming from someone who loves their 80s stuff. Who the fuck did Metallica inspire? Megadeth? Ugly Kid Joe? Cannibal Corpse? Fred Durst? Porky Pig? I don't know.

I'm torn on Metallica.

 

Both groups moved progressive rock forward. Both groups found a way to make progressive rock more listenable, not necessarily mainstream or commercial, but something that wouldn't be recognized by only hardcore progheads.

There's some amazing musicality out there in the progressive genre, but as you mentioned Bubs, it's how you use that musical talent. Rush found its way starting with "2112" ... even Neil Peart admits he's no fan of the group's first three albums and he was there writing lyrics for two of those.

As for Genesis, it's no secret that Peter Gabriel's use of props and costumes got the band noticed at first, but listen to "Selling England By The Pound" and tell me that group could be categorized as a "creative dead end in the final balance," Bubs. Sure, there were some guys playing with the percussive precision of Phil Collins (John Bonham and Keith Moon, to name two), but were they accompanied with the technical, yet understated, brilliance of Steve Hackett on the guitar, the mesmerizing chords of Tony Banks, the atmospheric lyrics of many of their tracks of the '70s ... yet made it all so listenable?

Not too many bands can offer those assets. And when Pete left, they adjusted and continued to make some amazing music. When Steve left ... well, there was no replacing him. And still they made "Duke," a superb thematic album.

The only thing I could see either of them getting punished for is inaccessible lyrics. And all that would be doing is punishing the groups for originality as opposed to the 500 euphemisms of The Mating Ritual that makes more mainstream music fly off the shelves in Wal-Mart.

Take or leave those two groups - I'm an obviously insanely biased fanboy looser of both - but to say either of these had no influence, failed to move their music forward or were a "creative dead end" is crazy.

 

DC5 is an interesting case. I liked them back in the day, but I would not argue for them in the Hall. They had a big two-year run of hit singles (some of which were covers of old US R & B hits) and then fizzled. They really didn't develop any "artistry" beyond that. In recent years it's come to light that most of the group (save for keyboardist Mike Smith, a legitimate musician) did not play on the recording sessions.

But they're in for these reasons:

1. Smith had a horrible accident in 2003 and is paralyzed. He was just released from the hospital after spending <i>four years</i> there. He still needs round-the-clock care, though, and has little hope of ever improving. So there's been a considerable sympathy vote, spearheaded by Steve Van Zandt and Paul Shaffer, who organized benefit shows on Smith's behalf.

2. Springsteen and members of his band (Max Weinberg, in particular) have cited the DC5 sound as a major influence. They were featuring a sax-driven sound when everyone else was all about guitars. I'm sure Springsteen's word means something to all the Wenner-ites.

3. Someone reported that the DC5 actually had the votes last year, and Wenner discarded the results to put in Grandmaster Flash because he was itchy for a rap act. So there was some sentiment to make things right this year, especially with Smith's health being a dicey issue.

 

isn't that like being the tallest midget? move forward to what?

more listenable, but not quite up to that lofty standard of listenable

 

The latter remark is simply a matter of personal taste. Some people will listen to anything. Others can't unless it's promoted and marketed to death, played on heavy rotation on their favorite radio station/satellite radio setting, etc. Rush and Genesis have an ample number of listenable offerings. Some people don't like Geddy's voice, others don't like any piece that lasts longer than four minutes and still others won't give instrumental music - no-lyric tracks - time of day.

As for the tallest midget, cute. But seriously, move the genre forward ... further than where it was, make sure it continues to evolve. Much like the orchestral composers moved their craft forward, much like piano and string quartet writers forwarded their works, prog rock continues to evolve.

To some, prog rock won't be accepted and that's fine. Rush has been called self-absorbed, pretentious and other similar derogatory terms. As opposed to what? Writing syrupy, formulaic lyrics that are about as original as ... oh yeah, commercial music. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

Ugly Kid Joe, hilarious... Metal died with Dime unfortunately. Anyone seen Axl?

 

I believe G&R come eligible in 2013. That will be a glorious day.

 

And to me, that's a band that should never get in. Don't get me wrong--love GnR; own their CDs, great stuff.

But, they blew it. A beautiful musical comet, but they fizzled away almost as quickly as they appeared.

When you compare their musical output and longevity to some of the others mentioned on this thread, they don't measure up. Not even close.

I know that's not going to be a popular opinion with a lot on the board. At least this should keep this thread on page one for a while....

 

Who are the first-time nominees for next year?

 

The 1910 Fruitgum Company
Britney Fox
Carl Douglas
A-ha
Josie and the Pussycats
Dee-Lite
Starland Vocal Band

 

Re: Personal taste . . .

The Rolling Stones get a lot of love, including from Rush bashers. In the 1960s, the Beatles were better and more innovative and influential, and the Who was much more willing to experiment and try different things. In the 1970s, Led Zeppelin helpd invent a new genre, while the Stones put out some very good, though usually not exactly groundbreaking, albums. In the 1980s, the Stones became a pop band. Now, they're a nostalgia band. They wrte some great tunes in their day (hey, I have their greatest hits collections). But how many guitarists and songwriters want to emulate the cock rock of Richards and Jagger, and how many looked to John and Paul for songwriting and Pete Townshend for guitar inspiration?

Aerosmith started as a wannabe Led Zeppelin, then became a wholly mediocre, drug-addled band, and has been putting out bubble-gum rock on the caliber of Def leppard's "Let's Get Rocked" era for 20 years now. Go ahead and name a single member of this band who compares to his peers as a singer/guitarist/drummer. "Joe Perry!" Not half as good as Jimmy page, Eddie Van halen, etc.

Yet, I wouldn't argue either band's worthiness of being a Rock Hall of Famer. They undeniably have their fans, and there's something to be said for longevity and continued relevance as evidenced by album sales and concert draws.

As for Metallica . . . . not sure how anyone can say they weren't influential. Every metal band of the past 20 years grew up listiening to their 1980s material. They were the forerunners of popularizing thrash metal, since they wrote better hooks than anyone. They also expanded the genre, took it beyond just sheer speed. As the Beatles were to pop and rock and studio experimentation in the 1960s, and as Zeppelin was to hard rock and studio wizardry in the 1970s, Metallica was the 1980s band that clearly had the most long-term influence. (Van halen just put out a bunch of enjoyable albums; they didn't change music).

But I'm someone who thinks Slayer and Anthrax should also get love for any Rock Hall worth its name, so take that witha grain of salt.

Sure, they got soft in the 1990s (though I dig about half the songs on the two Load albums, with the rest being pretty bad). But their tours have remained excellent, since they are pretty heavy on the old stuff. And again, there's something to be said for longevity and continued relevance.

Guns 'n' Roses had a Led Zeppeloin-like potential, with their willingness to experiment with different types of music and different instruments. They had lasting greatness within their grasp. But Axl was and is an ass, and that's it. I also dislike th fact they insisted on playing some of the crappier Use Your Illusion tunes at their shows in that era (Bad Obsession? Dust 'n' Bones? Knockin' on Heaven's Door? 14 years? Ugh)

Yet I would love to see them get inducted, since that can go only one of two ways. Either it leads to them realizing just how much money can be made on a reunion tour, or (more likely), it will lead to a hilariously tense acceptance speech and all-star jam.

 

This argument is why nearly every rock song of the past two decades has three-chorded its way into being entirely forgettable, and why there'll be no else to enter now that U2 and R.E.M. have entered.
There hasn't been a good guitar solo on a hit record in how long? Hey, there's plenty of room for the Ramones and Rush under the same umbrella. Those who argue otherwise define the music so narrowly that it eventually will lead itself to extinction.