Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:04 am
Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:41 am
Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:52 pm
Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:39 pm
Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:12 pm
likethebike wrote:
It's a tough call because their pop culture resonance and influence are so large, but it's hard to genuinely say whether you could have slated four other performers in those slots and gotten similar if not the same results.
Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:25 pm
Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:15 pm
brian wrote:
However for my own personal opinion the Rock n' roll hall of fame has always said that influence is the most important thing when deciding who gets inducted.
So the question should be what well known musicians were influenced by the Monkees.
Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:19 pm
intheghetto wrote:brian wrote:
However for my own personal opinion the Rock n' roll hall of fame has always said that influence is the most important thing when deciding who gets inducted.
So the question should be what well known musicians were influenced by the Monkees.
I think the question of influence is true and usually applies to the early characters of rock and roll like Elvis, Roy Orbison etc., but I don't think influence is always the case. Guns and Roses will be inducted this year and I don't see them so much an influential band as they were derivative. Not to take anything away from GnR as a great rock band. They have their place, but I can't really point to how their music was shaping anything in their wake since what they did was clearly influenced by Aerosmith, Thin Lizzy, etc. Going back a little farther there's The Rascals who again were a great band with some great pop hits, but I can't think of a band that came after them that you could say 'oh yeah...so-and-so band was influenced by The Rascals'.
Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:54 pm
Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:01 am
Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:44 pm
Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:36 am
Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:47 am
Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:49 pm
Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:10 am
Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:50 am
likethebike wrote:In the Ghetto- I think you're a little dismissive of the Rascals. They were hugely important in making blue eyed soul a commercial force in the mid-1960s. They were also important in keeping alive the black influence in white rock n' roll music as a lot of that music was shaking it off. They also had a handful of tracks that became garage band standards especially "Good Lovin'" and "Groovin" the latter also became a huge soul standard. And even their versions of "Mustang Sally" and "In the Midnight Hour" were as important to making those songs bar band classics as the original Wilson Pickett hits were. As great as they are, and as popular as they are today, they were solid but not massive hits in Pickett's originals. According to some sources, Pickett learned "Mustang Sally" from the Rascals, although Pickett's reference of a 1965 instead of a 1966 Mustang kind of puts that in doubt. But some authors say it. Finally, Max Weinberg of the E-Street band, a very important later ensemble, has cited the influence of Rascals' drummer Dino Dinelli on his play. So I don't think it's fair to say they had no influence. For me personally, I find them to be a much more exciting and soulful outfit than the Monkees. But that's me.
This brings into focus why the Rock n' Roll HOF is not a great idea. Influence only gets you so far. As one writer said it's like putting the guy who invented batting gloves into the baseball hall of fame before Mickey Mantle. On the other hand, artistic greatness is extremely difficult to quantify. Hell, as this thread proves so is the essence of what makes a particular genre of music. As Sgood pointed out, a lot of the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame might not even be rock n' roll.
Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:54 pm
likethebike wrote:In the Ghetto- I think you're a little dismissive of the Rascals. They were hugely important in making blue eyed soul a commercial force in the mid-1960s. They were also important in keeping alive the black influence in white rock n' roll music as a lot of that music was shaking it off. They also had a handful of tracks that became garage band standards especially "Good Lovin'" and "Groovin" the latter also became a huge soul standard. And even their versions of "Mustang Sally" and "In the Midnight Hour" were as important to making those songs bar band classics as the original Wilson Pickett hits were. As great as they are, and as popular as they are today, they were solid but not massive hits in Pickett's originals. According to some sources, Pickett learned "Mustang Sally" from the Rascals, although Pickett's reference of a 1965 instead of a 1966 Mustang kind of puts that in doubt. But some authors say it. Finally, Max Weinberg of the E-Street band, a very important later ensemble, has cited the influence of Rascals' drummer Dino Dinelli on his play. So I don't think it's fair to say they had no influence. For me personally, I find them to be a much more exciting and soulful outfit than the Monkees. But that's me.
This brings into focus why the Rock n' Roll HOF is not a great idea. Influence only gets you so far. As one writer said it's like putting the guy who invented batting gloves into the baseball hall of fame before Mickey Mantle. On the other hand, artistic greatness is extremely difficult to quantify. Hell, as this thread proves so is the essence of what makes a particular genre of music. As Sgood pointed out, a lot of the Rock and Roll Hall
Of Fame might not even be rock n' roll.
Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:38 pm
intheghetto wrote:likethebike wrote:In the Ghetto- I think you're a little dismissive of the Rascals. They were hugely important in making blue eyed soul a commercial force in the mid-1960s. They were also important in keeping alive the black influence in white rock n' roll music as a lot of that music was shaking it off. They also had a handful of tracks that became garage band standards especially "Good Lovin'" and "Groovin" the latter also became a huge soul standard. And even their versions of "Mustang Sally" and "In the Midnight Hour" were as important to making those songs bar band classics as the original Wilson Pickett hits were. As great as they are, and as popular as they are today, they were solid but not massive hits in Pickett's originals. According to some sources, Pickett learned "Mustang Sally" from the Rascals, although Pickett's reference of a 1965 instead of a 1966 Mustang kind of puts that in doubt. But some authors say it. Finally, Max Weinberg of the E-Street band, a very important later ensemble, has cited the influence of Rascals' drummer Dino Dinelli on his play. So I don't think it's fair to say they had no influence. For me personally, I find them to be a much more exciting and soulful outfit than the Monkees. But that's me.
This brings into focus why the Rock n' Roll HOF is not a great idea. Influence only gets you so far. As one writer said it's like putting the guy who invented batting gloves into the baseball hall of fame before Mickey Mantle. On the other hand, artistic greatness is extremely difficult to quantify. Hell, as this thread proves so is the essence of what makes a particular genre of music. As Sgood pointed out, a lot of the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame might not even be rock n' roll.
My comment regarding The Rascals had nothing to do with their greatness. I fully understand their place on the rock n roll timeline, and I'm not dismissing them as pop crap at all. In terms of influence I'm sure there are more Max Weinbergs and other rock musicians out there that could point to The Rascals as being instrumental in their perspective. Comparatively speaking though they are not as influential as the Elvies and Little Richards of the world. The RRHOF likes to pride itself on this prerequisite but not all of their inductees
have the same the same level of influence. The Rascals were a great band, but I think their status in the 'hall' is based more on their reputation for making great pop music in the 60s than it is for being influential.
Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:05 pm
Lonely Summer wrote:intheghetto wrote:likethebike wrote:In the Ghetto- I think you're a little dismissive of the Rascals. They were hugely important in making blue eyed soul a commercial force in the mid-1960s. They were also important in keeping alive the black influence in white rock n' roll music as a lot of that music was shaking it off. They also had a handful of tracks that became garage band standards especially "Good Lovin'" and "Groovin" the latter also became a huge soul standard. And even their versions of "Mustang Sally" and "In the Midnight Hour" were as important to making those songs bar band classics as the original Wilson Pickett hits were. As great as they are, and as popular as they are today, they were solid but not massive hits in Pickett's originals. According to some sources, Pickett learned "Mustang Sally" from the Rascals, although Pickett's reference of a 1965 instead of a 1966 Mustang kind of puts that in doubt. But some authors say it. Finally, Max Weinberg of the E-Street band, a very important later ensemble, has cited the influence of Rascals' drummer Dino Dinelli on his play. So I don't think it's fair to say they had no influence. For me personally, I find them to be a much more exciting and soulful outfit than the Monkees. But that's me.
This brings into focus why the Rock n' Roll HOF is not a great idea. Influence only gets you so far. As one writer said it's like putting the guy who invented batting gloves into the baseball hall of fame before Mickey Mantle. On the other hand, artistic greatness is extremely difficult to quantify. Hell, as this thread proves so is the essence of what makes a particular genre of music. As Sgood pointed out, a lot of the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame might not even be rock n' roll.
My comment regarding The Rascals had nothing to do with their greatness. I fully understand their place on the rock n roll timeline, and I'm not dismissing them as pop crap at all. In terms of influence I'm sure there are more Max Weinbergs and other rock musicians out there that could point to The Rascals as being instrumental in their perspective. Comparatively speaking though they are not as influential as the Elvies and
Little Richards of the world. The RRHOF likes to pride itself on this prerequisite but not all of their inductees
have the same the same level of influence. The Rascals were a great band, but I think their status in the 'hall' is based more on their reputation for making great pop music in the 60s than it is for being influential.
If Little Richard and Elvis are the standard for induction into the HOF, then there are lot of acts that SHOULD NOT be in there. It's kind of like the Willie Mays argument people use for the Baseball HOF. They have this misconception that Willie Mays or Ted Williams are the standard by which all potential HOF candidates
should be judged; only problem is, there are many players ALREADY IN the HOF that don't meet that standard. The Rascals are every bit as deserving as many acts that are in the Rock Hall.
Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:07 pm
Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:04 am
drjohncarpenter wrote:It really doesn't matter -- the RARHOF has become nothing but an industry gang-bang. There are as many deserving artists not inducted as undeserving acts who are.
Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:34 am
intheghetto wrote:drjohncarpenter wrote:It really doesn't matter -- the RARHOF has become nothing but an industry gang-bang. There are as many deserving artists not inducted as undeserving acts who are.
Agreed. But unfortunately it is now regarded as the highest honor any rock (or in alot of cases NON-rock) band or artist can receive.
Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:18 pm
Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:38 am
Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:54 pm
Lonely Summer wrote:I wish they had been inducted while all 4 were alive - would've been fun to see them onstage together again. Still, it will be pretty cool if they do get inducted, and we get to see Micky, Michael and Peter play Steppin' Stone and Circle Sky together. And then let's start a drive to get Nesmith and the First National Band inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.
Hosted by ElviCities