The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
Must...resist...arguing
 
  • Like
Reactions: zontar
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
The rankings are made on the basis of the appropriateness of each artist’s induction, not their baseline quality or my personal
fondness for the artists in question. In other words, was the act influential? Were they the first? Are they simply brilliant at
whatever it is they do? Those to me are considerations that make for a hall of fame band. (There are a few bands I personally like
a lot on the bottom half of the list.) I have one further criterion, too: Was their career worthy of being in a hall of fame? There are
some acts, a few fairly influential, whom I’ve downgraded, basically for being dinks. You may disagree, but it’s my list.

— and play the PR game in general and suck up to hall folks in particular so well — that they get inducted even though they are
highly derivative and blandly attitudinal, don’t write their own songs, base their act almost entirely on the lead singer’s hair, and
have not a thing to say.

But enough about Bon Jovi. Let’s go to the inductees!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,084 Posts
Lots I wouldn't include, and the order is amusing, but at least it gets me listening to stuff not on my usual list.

I long ago stopped being baffled and perplexed by such lists. I love asparagus and some folks don't, taste is weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,563 Posts
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,084 Posts
I really don't like doing this ranking stuff,... AT ALL. It is sooooooo f-ing subjective. It can end up becoming a battle of egos and holier-than-thou personal opinions
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,237 Posts
— and play the PR game in general and suck up to hall folks in particular so well — that they get inducted even though they are
highly derivative and blandly attitudinal, don’t write their own songs, base their act almost entirely on the lead singer’s hair, and
have not a thing to say.
It's funny to read that. Especially when you realize how many of Phil Spector's acts are way up there in his list. Pot, meet kettle? Perhaps it was because Andrew Loog Oldham wanted to bare Phil's children forever (and may have tried on a few occasions). Who knows?

He obviously doesn't like bands that show off their musical chops. Not surprising, being in the Stones for as long as we was. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
I really don't like doing this ranking stuff,... AT ALL. It is sooooooo f-ing subjective. It can end up becoming a battle of egos and holier-than-thou personal opinions
The OTHER thing it can be these days, more than ever before, is a way to attract attention to yourself. To a point any attention is good, and ranking some beloved and acclaim-deserving acts at the bottom of the list is a way to attract attention.

In Wyman's case maybe a way to claw back some limelight when - well, smack my momma - he has just released a new album. What a coincidence!

EDIT: Oooops, the article was NOT written by the Rolling Stones' Bill Wyman. My mistake, the disclaimer is buried in the article.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,050 Posts
nothing to argue about. Its a shit list.
a lot of those on the list "rock and roll" artists...eg Run DMC? Marvin Gaye?
please. Id be surprised if either of them ever even used those words to describe themselves even once in their lifetimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davetcan

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,921 Posts
I'd have trouble deciding between some of those bands for how high they should be--and for how low they should be...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,563 Posts
There was one article a number of years ago that placed Pink Floyd as number one. In my mind I disagreed. Now, I like Pink Floyd and listened to them many, many times especially when I was younger. However, I didn't think of them anywhere near as being number one. So, I read the reasons in the article that they should be number one and did a little more research on the group (because I like doing that kind of thing). I came away with a different point of view (just like Johnny Cash is A Boy Named Sue). I still don't know if I would regard them as number one but they went way up on the list after that. They are indeed, true musicians. My point is that sometimes we don't know enough about the musicians, music, background, etc to make an educated vote and why some are chosen at a certain number and why others are left out.This was one of the videos I watched. You may find it interesting too.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,696 Posts
Um, he may have the same name, but I'm not all that sure it is the Bill Wyman we might think it is. I suspect the more famous Wyman would have also selected Chuck Berry as #1, but he would have also made some very different choices further down the list. He also explicily says he is not related the Stones' bassist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Um, he may have the same name, but I'm not all that sure it is the Bill Wyman we might think it is. I suspect the more famous Wyman would have also selected Chuck Berry as #1, but he would have also made some very different choices further down the list. He also explicily says he is not related the Stones' bassist.
I did miss that. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,696 Posts
In fairness, it was buried in there. I guess if one was initially misled by the name, one wouldn't have read the segment on the Stones, figuring that it might be self-congratulatory. I only stumbled onto it because I was wondering just HOW self-congratulatory it would be. I have every confidence that you joined a VERY long lineup of folks making the same mistaken inference. Hell, just how many of us here have ever encountered another "Bill Wyman"? I've had Michael Jacksons in my classes, but never a Bill Wyman. Easy mistake. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,050 Posts
Fact is, every single one of us would have a different list. Vive la difference, I say...
Very true.
I know my list would suck as well, because I have huge gaps in my musical knowledge pre-1970.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gtone

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
Um, he may have the same name, but I'm not all that sure it is the Bill Wyman we might think it is. I suspect the more famous Wyman would have also selected Chuck Berry as #1, but he would have also made some very different choices further down the list. He also explicily says he is not related the Stones' bassist.
Nice work. Seems he's used the confusion to his advantage before & beat a 'cease & desist': Can Bill Wyman be Bill Wyman? No, says Bill Wyman / Rock critic takes heat from rocker of same name
But this one takes the cake, 'fake' Wyman faking Jagger and people going for it: Will the Real Author (Bill Wyman) Please Stand Up?
:eek:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,237 Posts
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top