Hall Of Fame: Induction Thread Number 1

I'm sorry transcendent usually means beyond categories (in music terms genre) or superior to (but you didn't list anything for Elliott to be inferior to...) so I assumed it was the former which would mean to me, being diverse but I guess you can be a cock rock band and never really differ from that and still be transcendental?
 
Ok, here goes:

Led Zeppelin; No; I don't care for extended solos, that cheesy, heavy guitar sound, etc. Plus, had they never been around, the Stone Roses might not have sturabled into the disaster that was Second Coming.

Joy Division; No; I planned to vote yes because New Order was so great and JD did have a few good tracks, but overall their oeuvre is bland and fairly unexciting.

Elliott Smith; No; Not really into the indie folk thing here.

The Beatles; No; What's the big deal? Their lyrics are lame and the tunes are great for the first dozen times. After that they get really old.

The Velvet Underground; Yes; Their first two albums are classics.


I didn't vote for King Crimson or Wu-Tang Clan because I'm not really familiar with them.
 
I get what you mean, but saying no to him now pretty much eliminates him from getting in later, right? And I'm sure people like Bob Dylan, Nick Drake, and Leonard Cohen *cough* will all be nominated in time..
 
Saying that a musician didn't produce "superior" music doesn't require an explicit subject for comparison. It is quite commonly used to mean "superior to the rest of music." Which, lo and behold, I specified after you questioned me about the word.
 
Saying something is superior does require a comparison, as its a comparative word...I've never heard anyone say "That's superior" without directly comparing it to something.
 
I'm glad the overall consensus isn't too angry, i agree that it shouldn't be like every other Hall of Fame thing out there so it's good that it's like this (though i was cheering on the Wu :D)
 
Back
Top