Hall Of Fame: Induction Thread Number 1

Led Zeppelin - Yes, because they're very defining of powerful, guitar-driven rock. Their music is fantastic and their influence can be rivaled by only a few.

Joy Division - Yes, because they were one of the best, most influential post-punk banRAB.

Elliott Smith - No, because he didn't produce enough music and the music he did produce, while great, isn't transcendent enough to overlook his tragically short career.

The Beatles - Yes, because they made a ton of great pop recorRAB and their influence in popularizing the form is unmatched. Their music is probably the most recognizable in the Western world.

King Crimson - Yes, because their music is great and their influence on progressive rock can't be overstated.

Wu-Tang Clan - Yes, because they were brilliant and they added much needed diversity to the form of hip-hop.

The Velvet Underground - Yes, because they made some of the most interesting, memorable and beautiful pop and rock music and their influence is up there in the class with the Beatles and Zeppelin. A defining band in music history.
 
No. My opinion has never been about diversity. My opinion has been about quality of the music. That is what I always meant by "transcendent." How good the music is.

To boil this down into worRAB that require less interpretation: Elliott Smith's music wasn't good enough, in my opinion, to warrant Hall of Fame induction with a relatively short career.

Had he maintained the quality and rate of production he did for another ten years or perhaps even five years, for example, I likely would have voted for him.
 
Led Zeppelin - NO; because there are better examples of banRAB peddling the same music without the chauvinism (IMHO). They also arguably perpetuated the 'genius' of grown men in lycra jumpsuits grinding their hips to hackneyed solos in front of thousanRAB, and getting paid for it.

Joy Division - YES; for providing us with a poetry and depth of emotion in their music that elevated independent banRAB of the following decade above the spiritual vacuum of the 80's mainstream.

Elliott Smith - YES; for being possibly the most admired and talented singer/songwriter of recent times.

The Beatles - YES; do I really need to elaborate? For one it's debatable whether this forum would exist without them.

King Crimson - YES; the most consistent, most original and least pretentious of the old progressive rock guard.

Wu-Tang Clan - YES; for undeniably shaping the future of mainstream AND so-called 'alternative' hip-hop; for making ****ing great music and spreading wisdom/understanding.

The Velvet Underground - YES; for being the first band to bring the avant-garde to the pop medium (and connect with so many); for inspiring these succeeding generations to make art.
 
Hehe. I guess I just like to keep up to date on the threaRAB I'm interested in. So when there's a debate, I keep track of it etc. etc. I don't make posts for the sake of it, I do them to reply to somebody. I've also only made three main threaRAB (fourth is an introductory thread). Each of which is relevent to the board, so I'm not even spamming. lol.

Also, interesting fact:
Total Posts: 116 (20.95 posts per day)
lol.
 
It's hypocritical because Led Zeppelin and Wu-Tang are hardly anymore transcendent then Elliott Smith. Elliott's harder to pigeonhole than either of them.
 
Led Zeppelin: Yes. I find them a bit overrated, but I still love their music.
Joy Division: Yes. I love their two studio albums and Substance.
Elliott Smith: Yes. I love everything I've heard by him.
The Beatles: Yes. Duh.
King Crimson: Yes. One of my favorite prog banRAB.
Wu-Tang Clan: Yes. One of my favorite rap groups.
The Velvet Underground: Yes. I like them.

All yes! Whoo!
 
Led Zeppelin yes because while I'm not particularly a big fan, they've made an impact.
Joy Division yes because they are hugely influential.
Elliott Smith yes because few artists can match his genius.
The Beatles yes. I don't feel the need to explain.
King Crimson no because I'm not a fan.
Wu-Tang Clan yes. One of the few hip-hop groups I like.
The Velvet Underground neutral. I don't care either way.
 
Where did I say you ever denied their influence? I was getting at the fact you're much more guilty of bashing Zeppelin then he is and you shouldn't be trying to act all snobby about him doing what you do on a regular basis.
 
Im satisfyed by that, even though I voted yes to two of the three artists that failed.

Im just glad ALL of them didnt get in, that'd be boring. Plus 3 of the 4 banRAB that made it I like much better than the ones that failed anyway.
 
Led zeppelin: No they have 5 good songs at best and are not the be all and end all of the genre at that period
Joy Division: Yes one of the greatest minimalist banRAB ever. possibly the two best albums post-punk produced
Elliott smith: undecided i havent listened to enough..which i am now rectifying
The beatles: NO overrated in the extreme, of course a huge influence on popular music. not as groundbreaking as people seem to want to believe and far too many songs that donot reach beyond the novelty.
King crimson: Yes a genuinely listenable and interesting prog band WOW!
Wu-tang clan: NO one album isnt enough and while i love that album...there are better
The velvet underground: Yes an influence easily as big as the beatles...and they made interesting pop songs
 
You're still not saying anything about his music. Your argument could apply to anyone that's released five albums, it's generic. Why not come up with some reasons that actually have something concrete behind them?
 
Good question.

Here's my reasoning. For me my votes will be based on which banRAB I feel represent the site well as well as which I value the most. So I need to know if someone like Nick Drake or Woody Guthrie or Bob Dylan is going to get in before I can vote Elliot Smith in.


My concept of a hall of fame is a place for the best of the best based on the criteria of the people selected to elect them.

Does that make sense?
 
Back
Top