Time Magazine's Top 10 Rock and Roll Hall of Sham Snubs

HAHA, that is absolutely perfect. It really is.

 

Ditto

 

Shouldn't that be mega-dittos?

 

In remembrance of a response to my first post here ("I don't want to hear about anybody being influenced by f$%#ing Rush!", I ask:

Who the hell has KISS influenced?

I'm not against their induction myself because I don't think being influential is necessary, but . . . . influential? To WHOM?

Bad bass players? Bad singers? Self-promoters? Egotistical a-holes who consolidate power within the band, and thus shuffle through bandmates?

Seriously, who?

People who put image above music? People who want to make money?

Alice Cooper for the former, and Led Zeppelin for the latter, started those particular trends.

Anyway . . .

10. Cheap Trick (Maybe, but what did they have, five years where they were relevant? Replays of decades-old songs on radio should not count when a band is no longer recording or even touring. But then, the frackin' PRETENDERS are in, so why not?)
9. Moody Blues (See above re: length of popular reign. Would have no quibble with them being in)
8. Rush (Longevity and influence on people who, you know, actually play instruments and start bands should count for something. After Black Sabbath got in, easily the Hall's most glaring snub)
7. Doobie Brothers (Shocked they're not in. Seem right up the alley of the Rolling Stone idiots who run the show. Wouldn't quibble with them.
6. Boston (no fucking way) (Ditto there. One really listenable album that gets over played now?
5. Chicago (see below)
4. Genesis (With Chicago, another band who's omission is a shock based on longevity and merit. But then, "Being able to have sex to IT!!!!" has never been one of my requirements for good music, so whatever)
3. Pat Benatar (Nope. Not a pioneer, not a longterm stalwart. I do like "We Belong," though).
2. Def Leppard (I believe that with Iron Maiden and Judas Priest, they were the popular part of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Then, of course, they went bubblegum like Aerosmith did almost at the same time. My main argument against is that I think as long as we're talking metal, Iron Maiden and Slayer deserve consideration, as does solo Ozzy, if he's not already in. No problem if they got in).
1. KISS (Made a career out of writing throwaway, but enjoyable, tunes. I usually say that when a band spends this much time on image, the music can't possibly be special - I'm looking at you, Marilyn Manson - but KISS never aspired to be anything but a good time rock and roll band. In that way, they succeeded and are Hall of Famers).

In order by egrigiousness of the snub:

1. Rush
2. Genesis
3. KISS
4. Moody Blues
5. Chicago
6. Def Leppard

And the rest . . . .

 

Cheap Trick is still recording (last album was '06, I think) and they're touring this summer with--IRONY ALERT--Def Leppard and Poison. Maybe they should call it "We're Not In The HOF But We Try Just As Hard" tour.

 

Folks, I promise I'm not Piotr. Besides, I would have rated Chicago no worse than fourth.

 

Right after I posted, I feared some sad Creature of the 1980s would inform me that Cheap Trick is indeed, still around.

Well . . . I did say put them in, right?

Poison, BTW, like Whitesnake, Cinderella, and any number of hair "metal" bands that caused a generation of fans to become very confused regarding what is actually "METAL!!" and what is cheese for adolescents . . . has no business ever being considered.

Motley Crue, however . . . love those first two albums. Cheese lyrics, but some very entertaining music.

 

KISS reached the level of self-parody a long time ago, but the following two facts are indisputable:

1. Practically every kid who picked up a guitar for the first time between 1975 and 1980 did so because of Ace Frehely. One of the most underrated musicians in history.

2. Perhaps more than any other band ever, KISS lives by the belief that if you buy a ticket to their show, you become their employer for the next 2 1/2 hours. Putting on a great show is the over-arching force in their careers, rather than serving their own selfish artistic interests.

Of course they should be in.

As for the others, I'm not a huge fan of any of them (though Def Leppard's "Pyromania" is a kick-ass album by any measure), but I appreciate their places in music history.

All except Boston, that is. They weren't even a band. They were just Tom Scholz in his basement with a four-track recorder. He hired a band to go on tour. Pass.

 

Not quite. More like Tom Scholtz and Brad Delp, who was a much better vocalist than the material given him

 

Cheap Trick absolutely deserves in. So does Rush and Genesis. All of these bands had great musicians, innovative songwriters and great live shows. And they're all still strong live acts today.

Count me in group No. 1, too ... even though it was a few years later than your timeframe. KISS understood that they're entertainers, and they've delivered the goods for a long time. I can forgive "Forever" because of all the other great songs they've cranked out.

Bonus points to KISS because they played the homecoming dance in Cadillac, Mich., in 1975.

 

Well, at least they offer some sort of response, however forumulaic and canned. But that makes them look dumber because Genesis, Rush, KISS and probably Chicago have done more to innovate, influence and generally "impact" rock and roll than many of the other acts who are already in.

 

Trammell was much better at his peak than Ripken? Really?