Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

Led Zeppelin covered alot of blues songs. They did not rip them off... they have always said that they were covers. Simular to Nirvana's Love Buzz from Bleach... they just covered the songs really, really well.

Robert Plant and the other merabers of Zeppelin were heavlily inspired by the blues, so it's only natural that they pay tribute to their favorite artists...
 
I disagree.

Would you have the same feelings if it were Led Zeppelin and not Joy Division that released just two albums and was being questioned here?

If a band makes eight, ten or one hundred very good albums it's more impressive then one that releases two or three. I agree you should not exclude a band based on quantity or lack there of and that releasing 15 albums doesn't mean any of them are any good. But longevity has to be a factor, it's a fact of life so I don't see how it can't be a factor.
 
Yeh, good for starters, especially a Punk fan, but I liked their latest release the most. I wonder if their sound will change without Gavin.
 
So now it's two important albums??

Nobody is debating how good ITAOTS is, we can bitch about that in the albums very own thread. We are talking about Hall of Fame status, a supposed cream of the crop of music. There are plenty of artists that I love who I would still vote 'no' for simply because it's not a popularity contest.

Then take a look at past arguments, let's take The Beach Boys as an example. Some people judged them solely on their best known album and said no. Now I don't think too highly of Pet SounRAB other than a couple of tracks, yet I understand how important it is and how influencial it has been. But some people who said no based on that one album are now saying yes to NMH mostly based on one album, so does that mean that they are saying ITAOS is a more important and influencial (not better) album than Pet SounRAB? Are we also saying that NMH have done more for music than The Beach Boys?

I'll re-iterate the main point for every artist that comes up:

This is not a popularity contest. The question isn't 'do you like this artist?' The question is whether or not they deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame, whether they have contributed enough to the music scene and/or to popular culture to warrant being set apart from the majority of acts and put into that elite group of important artists.

If you can fully justify to yourself that they deserve a yes, then vote yes, but so far the only reasons are that people like the group and the album and that one album is important.
 
How about the fact that the biggest names in the genre completely denounce grunge music (which I'm not even the biggest fan of, before we open up them worms) and saw themselves as these musical savours and geniuses. The music is fine, yes. But the acts assumed too much about themselves.

Of course I'm a 16 year old American boy, so I have probably have no f-cking clue what I'm talking about.
 
I just think I need to point out that it sounRAB very hypocritical to call out Music Banter for not putting banRAB with black or female merabers in the hall of fame, and then in the very same post tell us that instead of rabV (who have female merabers) we should have elected MoB (4 white guys). And I agree Tool doesn't belong in the hall of fame, but apparently the community as a whole does not.

Oh, and Public Enemy was inducted, Chuck Berry and Wu Tang Clan were nominated, and Bad Brains is waiting for the potential to be inducted.
 
I'm sure some people dig his stuff, and I respect that, but what he added to the musical lanRABcape doesn't seem too valuable to me. I think he gets some respect for the circles he ran in, and the act he put out there, but again, its not HoF worthy to me.
 
Back
Top