Members nat whilk II Posted October 1, 2007 Members Share Posted October 1, 2007 1) Madonna is not rock'n'roll. Period. If they wanted to include all popular music they just should've called it the Popular Music Hall of Fame or whatever. 2) Madonna is not very musically talented. She succeeded on her image, her marketing schtick, and by hiring other talented people to produce her, co-write, etc. A lot of people seem to think that's worthy of respect, but I don't. I can't respect a salesman for selling crap no matter how good he or she is at selling it. Gee, Lee, if you have strong feelings about this, you can go ahead and tell us, really! Don't gunnysack - you are safe with us, don't be afraid to let your true feelings show!nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 I've heard of major artists who will perform your song PROVIDED they get credited as a co-write and the subsequent half share of the royalties. As a result I'm often sceptical when I see a co-write credit of a major artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MoreGuitars Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Until Deep Purple is in, the hall of fame is worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Until Deep Purple is in, the hall of fame is worthless.Ehhh, it'll probably remain worthless anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well what can RockNRoll call it's most important characteristics? Since it's basically a sub of Pop, it already has a pretty low bar. I mean it can't be some intellectual criteria, like could be applied to classical or jazz. It has to be some mix of musical/performance skills and sheer charisma, even if illusory. It's at least half defined as successful as "Pop" because, well, it's Popular, by definition. So if the audience can't tear it's eyes away and dives deep into the vibe, it's working as Pop or Rock or whatever Popular subgenre is at hand. Madonna had a definite vision, a definite vibe, an alchemy of ingredients that, if didn't include much in the way of sheer musical talent and execution, she still had what it took to put on a show, to break boundaries for better or worse, to make a cultural statement of sorts. She was big, really big, for a lot of (mostly female) people - everyone knows this. I mean she fulfills in so many ways what the rock crowd claims to worship - in your face sexuality, outrage the elders, entrace the youngers and make'm dance and dig it and buy it and emulate it. These are not my personal values, but unless the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame decides that Rock should be an "improving" cultural influence, Madonna is in familiar company in their little Hall. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Great post, Nat.Not liking someone doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the hall of fame any more than liking them means they should be.The Britney vs. Madonna concept is actually telling. To me, the difference is that Madonna has done music that reaches me emotionally; I have several of her CDs and several cuts of hers on my Zen. Britney's music doesn't reach me emotionally, and I don't have any cuts on my Zen. Case closed The irony is that even though I listen to some of Madonna's music, I don't think I would like her as a person. In fact, she might be one of those artists that if you meet them, you can't listen to their music any more.Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rabid Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 What aggravated me about Madonna is I never felt she needed to do those things for her career. Taking the name Madonna, looking like Marilyn Monroe, putting out picture books and generating as much controversy as possible. All she needed to do was co-write songs and perform. I never knew if she loved controversy or was so scared of failure that she was willing to do anything to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 What aggravated me about Madonna is I never felt she needed to do those things for her career. Taking the name Madonna, looking like Marilyn Monroe, putting out picture books and generating as much controversy as possible. All she needed to do was co-write songs and perform. I never knew if she loved controversy or was so scared of failure that she was willing to do anything to avoid it. Do you think that she would have had as long-lasting a career or as much fame if she hadn't done those things? Interesting last question. Probably both, plus an insatiable lust for fame and acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Not liking someone doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the hall of fame any more than liking them means they should be. That's kind of a cheap shot, assuming that if someone doesn't want Madonna to be in the Hall of Fame it's just because "don't like her." There are plenty of people I don't like or whose music isn't to my taste, whom I nonetheless recognize as talented. And also plenty of people I LIKE whom I don't think deserve to be in the R&R Hall of Fame, either because they aren't "rock" enough or because they aren't really well known enough to merit that kind of attention. So I'll just reiterate why I actually don't think Madonna should be in: 1) She's definitely not rock'n'roll - and that applies to a lot of other people who are currently in. Not that there's anything wrong with that in itself of course, but ya know.... Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, but if he was nominated for the Baseball Hall of Fame I think most people would rightly wonder wtf they were thinking. And 2) She's just not very talented. By that I don't mean "I don't like her music," although it's true that I don't. I mean that pretty much everyone else who's in there so far is a far better singer or songwriter or producer or something having to do with actual music, than she is. Whether or not I like them and whether or not I think they're rock'n'roll, at least there's that. In short, like I said in my first post, if they're letting her in then I don't consider the HoF worth a damn. They should at least change the name, my gawd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 I was just thinking... one thing about Madonna -- compared to Britney and Lindsay, et al, Madonna looks like Madame Curie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well what can RockNRoll call it's most important characteristics? Since it's basically a sub of Pop, it already has a pretty low bar. I mean it can't be some intellectual criteria, like could be applied to classical or jazz. Oh come on man. RockNRoll's been around for 50 years, if you don't know the difference between rock and pop by now I'm not sure where you've been. Sure it's a sub of pop and it's not "intellectual" but that doesn't mean there's nothing musically that makes it different. These are not my personal values, but unless the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame decides that Rock should be an "improving" cultural influence, Madonna is in familiar company in their little Hall. That's silly, because again... that's defining rock'n'roll as something other than music. Sure, image and sexuality and a certain attitude have traditionally been part of rock'n'roll and one can say Madonna has all of those things. But that's not by any means THE thing that makes rock what it is. Musically she's nothing to do with rock'n'roll, and there is also plenty of rock'n'roll that doesn't incorporate that image or attitude. If they're going to stretch the definition of the term so they can include people like her that's pretty silly... like I say they might as well just call it the Pop Music Hall of Fame, then they can include pop artists and R&B and all the rest without looking like idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 History will show that Lee Flyer and I are right. Madonna will be a footnote in rock history along with folks like Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, all those guys named Bobby from the post-Elvis, pre-Beatles era, the Partridge family, Milli Vanilli etc. It seems to me that there is a need for a R&B/Soul Hall of Fame and a Pop Hall of Fame, a Multi-media Image Creation and Marketing Hall of Fame, and maybe eventually an Electronica/Dance music Hall of Fame so the meaning of rock doesn't get diluted to the point of meaninglessness. And I say that with no disrespect towords R&B and electronica, I like much of that music, but most of it has little to do with rock in the tradition of Bill Haley, Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Clash, Nirvana etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well, I sense a certain amount of turf protection here...understandable, but think about what it means if you get what you want - a more narrowly defined "Rock'nRoll" definition that preserves the identity of the genre against inroads by Pop, R&B, Hiphop, etc. Do you really want that? Some thoughts... The thing about Rock'nRoll, or Rock pure and simple, was that it has been for the longest time the most flexible, the most experimental, the most pretentious, the most surprising and unpredictable of all the popular genres. To me, that's its strength and the key to its longevity. Rock is supposed to eat all the other genres for breakfast, making any kind of hash it wants to out of music from crooners, Buck Owens, Etta James, John Cage, Bob Moog, Beethoven, Bach, turtlenecked bleating folkies, recorded samples from industrial machinery, Pavarotti, JP Sousa, musique concrete, Nelson Riddle, primal scream therapy, Gospel, doowop, Ragga, Reggae, and Gamelan and whatever. If it gets reduced to honoring the bass/rythm/lead/keys/drummer paradigm that came to perfection sometime in the 70s, then it's gone - it's dead - it's an academic exercise in a celebrating the remnants of a genre that's seen its day, no matter how astounding a handful of current acts appear. For me, if Rock puts fences up around its turf, then it just shut it out from the essential fire at its core. But - Lee is great to argue with and I'm sure she'll skewer me nicely with a tough comeback....love ya, Lee! nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Good points Nat. But I still wouldn't put John Cage, Sinatra or Buck Owens in a Rock Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 What blurs the distinctions is that some of these artists that we are discussing, such as John Cage, are definitely NOT rock, but have contributed immensely to rock. John Cage, for example, is a heavy influence on The Beatles and Brian Eno/U2. And it's certainly obvious that many blues / gospel / country / jazz / classical artists have contributed immeasurably to rock.But again, I don't know, and honestly, I don't care.~~~~I'm not a big Madonna fan, musically or otherwise, although she has a few catchy songs that I think are okay. But I just don't care. I see persuasive arguments on BOTH sides of the fence for Madonna's inclusion, at any rate, and I'm not sure where that leaves me.Anyway, carry on!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members whiskee Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 That's outrageous. I thought it was a rock'n'roll HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wide Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 like I say they might as well just call it the Pop Music Hall of Fame, then they can include pop artists and R&B and all the rest without looking like idiots. There are a lot of R&B and soul artists in the RockandRoll Hall of Fame. Isley Brothers, Sam and Dave, Ruth Brown, Etta James, Four Tops, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Gladys Knight and the Pips, Otis Redding, Wilson Picket, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well, I sense a certain amount of turf protection here...understandable, but think about what it means if you get what you want - a more narrowly defined "Rock'nRoll" definition that preserves the identity of the genre against inroads by Pop, R&B, Hiphop, etc. Do you really want that? No, and that's not AT ALL what I'm advocating. It has nothing to do with "turf protection," and sure rock is very flexible and experimental and has incorporated lots of other styles into it. But the term is meaningless if it just means "anything that is popular music" (and really why even limit it to "popular music" because rock has at times incorporated classical too). The term still has a meaning, and rock is still recognizable as rock even in spite of its flexibility and how much it has morphed and spawned sub-genres. If that weren't the case, we might as well not even use the term anymore. And if we're going to use it at all, let's not apply it to artists it doesn't apply to. It's just silly, considering it's not as if something has to be rock to be good or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 2, 2007 Members Share Posted October 2, 2007 There are a lot of R&B and soul artists in the RockandRoll Hall of Fame. Isley Brothers, Sam and Dave, Ruth Brown, Etta James, Four Tops, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Gladys Knight and the Pips, Otis Redding, Wilson Picket, etc. Yeah, and that is stretching it a bit but one can at least make the argument that all those folks were a huge musical influence on rock artists. Rock gets a lot if not most of its "gestalt" from early R&B, and R&B continues to shape rock a lot. Many of the first rock classics were covers of R&B songs. So I'm not gonna get too bent out of shape about that. I think the Bee Gees were the first nomination that I seriously questioned. And sure those guys are talented, but rock? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Magpel Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 1) Madonna is not rock'n'roll. Period. If they wanted to include all popular music they just should've called it the Popular Music Hall of Fame or whatever.2) Madonna is not very musically talented. She succeeded on her image, her marketing schtick, and by hiring other talented people to produce her, co-write, etc. A lot of people seem to think that's worthy of respect, but I don't. I can't respect a salesman for selling crap no matter how good he or she is at selling it. Lee Hath Spoken for me... Plus Madonna disqualified herself when claimed to be a trailblazing, liberating influence on women in rock, without even mentioning Debbie Harry, Chrissie Hynde, or a million other legit rocker chicks who tore the roof off the sucker... Sorry, but Madonna hungers, lusts after influence, status, legacy and ever-replensihed, never fading sexxiness, and the paradox of cool is that you can't be cool by tryin' So...no way. Not in my HoF. I guess I don't care who gets into the one in Cleveland--maybe if they allow local bands Pere Ubu (elligible) and Guided by Voices (soon to be elligible!) in, I'll reconsider the seriousness of their mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Magpel Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 More: They should build and curate a Hall of Fame. Not a something Hall of Fame-- not baseball, rock and roll, or civil engineering Hall of Fame, but a Hall of Fame. And Madonna can be the first one in, because Fame is exactly what she is good at. She is a bloody virtuoso of fame. So is Bono, but Bono's also pretty good at Rock and Roll... And if Madonna is voted in to the R&R HoF, I will begin an aggressive and tireless campaign for the inclusion of Pat Boone, for only the inclusion of Pat Boone can establish definitively what a farce and a sham the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Magpel Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 Well, I sense a certain amount of turf protection here...understandable, but think about what it means if you get what you want - a more narrowly defined "Rock'nRoll" definition that preserves the identity of the genre against inroads by Pop, R&B, Hiphop, etc. Do you really want that? Some thoughts... The turf I want protected is not bound by genre. Rock and Roll, as you rightly observe is a bastard and imperialistic form by nature and by origin. Elvis understood the contradicitons. Pat Boone and his people, not so much. The turf to protect has more to do with quality and legitimacy--difficult terms to define and agree upon, of course, which is why the Rock and Roll HoF was doomed from the start. The Baseball Hall of Fame is also a subjective process, but the terms for argument-building are well understood, agreed upon, and largely though not entirely quantitative. The terms of Rock and Roll legend are mythic. It ain't gonna work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 Plus Madonna disqualified herself when claimed to be a trailblazing, liberating influence on women in rock, without even mentioning Debbie Harry, Chrissie Hynde, or a million other legit rocker chicks who tore the roof off the sucker... You betcha! One of my personal pet peeves about her. I hadn't brought it up because I thought it had little to do with the topic of her being in the HoF, but really it does - because a good deal of the reason she's getting in there on her "cultural icon" status is because she did such a good job of painting herself as something she's not: a trail blazing, liberating influence on women as you say. Plenty of other legitimate talents had already done the job by the time she came along, so she wasn't blazing any trails. And I don't consider dressing up like a whore and gaining control by emulating the worst stereotypical behaviors of men to be "liberated". It's just being a prisoner of culture in a different way. Great comments all the way around Magpel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KHAN Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 Madonna will be inducted on her first chance. Rush will never get a sniff. 'nuff said. Remember when Rolling Stone was cool? It's all just a money grab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 3, 2007 Members Share Posted October 3, 2007 HI KHAN!!!!! Great to see you!! I have so missed your huge crying green smilies. And, you are spot on. I gotta say that as much as I personally can't stand Rush - and as you know, I really can't stand them - they totally belong in anything calling itself the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. And you are right, them not being in and Madonna getting nominated her first chance just points out all the more how ridiculous the whole thing is. It's a crying shame. A huge, green, crying shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.