Here you can discuss other musicians and CD reissues etc

Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:04 am

Sure, there are many many bands that should be in the RRHOF, but the recent passing of Davy Jones again reminds us of their absence from the hallowed halls of this imperfect institution.

Apparently the reasons for them not being in is because they weren't a 'real' band but a made for TV band, although technically they became a real band during their extremely popular presence on the cultural landscape of the 60s. Other reasons that have been bandied about is that they didn't play their own instruments...even though there were two professional musicians that did play instruments in band. One of the other reasons is they didn't write their own material, and on and on. The problem with these arguments is that you could point to several other inductees that share some of these same characteristics. How many-Elvis included-were performers who didn't write their own material? How many bands-including The Beach Boys-were not completely present as musicians on their studio LPs? Another current example is The Beastie Boys who will soon be inducted. For starters their music isn't technically 'rock and roll' on top of the fact that they weren't a 'real' band of musicians, and not until their third album 'Check Your Head', started to assume the roles of musicians that actually played their own instruments.

The Monkees are a unique example because of their original, fictional existence. But in reality they did sing on and sell millions of records that happen to have been written by several RRHOF inductees, and did tour as a real band. Their role in the world of pop music cannot be denied. They may have been a 'fake' band in the beginning, but let's face it, they weren't The Partridge Family even though the RRHOF likes to think they were.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:41 am

A good case could certainly be made for the Monkees to be inducted.

You just covered the B.S. reasons of Jan Wenner for not inducting artists that he doesn't like and his hypocrisy.

The Monkees were certainly more rock n' roll than most of the acts that they have inducted and you can bet that if Wenner was a fan of them they'd already have been in there.

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.

If the Monkees did influence at least a few well know artists they should be inducted if not i wouldn't.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:52 pm

No.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:39 pm

Should it be the Monkees or their creators in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Granted as the first made for video, created for TV teen idols they definitely deserve a place. But maybe that place should be for the creators of the show.

My main argument against their inclusion is the fact that they were not an organic act. They were placed together at someone else's behest. The majority of their most famous material was chosen for them, not by them. The sound of that material was chosen for them not by them. That's a huge difference between them and Elvis or them and the Beach Boys. Now they were genuinely talented and wound up taking control, but again they largely, save Michael Nesmith, stuck to the sounds that made famous. I mean "Daydream Believer" is of a piece with "I'm a Believer" and the other Kirschner controlled hits.

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.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.


True, we'll never know what the results may have been if four other people were cast. However, The Monkees' popularity continues to this day and that's not something that should be overlooked.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:25 pm

I'm not saying it should. They clearly were not the no-talents some critics have assumed them to be. They probably wouldn't have been cast if they were. However, there's kind of a four guys hired to a do a job thing about them.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.



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'.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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'.


That's true.

The Rock n' roll hall of fame says influence is the main criteria for induction but they are inconsistent on that.

You have once again pointed out how flawed their process is because while they have inducted artists who were very influential they also induct people that weren't.

You have convinced me that the Monkees should have be inducted a few years ago.

They will never get in because Jan Wenner is a biased hypocritical jerk with a grudge against the Monkees when he shouldn't have one.

It's the same reason why Kiss hasn't been inducted.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:54 pm

As far as I'm aware, it was only on albums 1, 2 and 4 that they didn't play their own instruments in the main. On albums 3 onwards they contributed much of their own material

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:01 am

You know it's funny. On the one hand the RRHOF rejects The Monkees because of their prefab origins, yet it was perfectly ok to have Justin Timbelake, member of that other 'fake' band N'Sync, be part of the ceremonies a few years ago when he gave the induction speech for Madonna, so the 'Hall' basically bends the rules when it fits their agenda.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:44 pm

YES they should be in there! I think the Hall of Fame is a joke really.Too many non-rock artists in there...why?? Madonna was never rock, more dance/disco to my ear, not rock. Pat Benatar is Rock..Lady GaGa is not. but yes, Monkees deserve to be in there!

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:36 am

Maybe the group known as the Monkees should be inducted along with their creators Rafelson and Schneider.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:47 am

The Monkees would be the ones to get inducted rather than their creators because the Rock n' roll hall of fame needs big names to sell tickets.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:49 pm

yes they should be inducted..From Headquarters to monkees presents and justus they were a rock band because they wrote alot of the songs on those albums and produced alot the songs...sure they didn't play the songs together with all 4 of them but you will find at least two members per song either playing or singing on most of the songs...

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:10 am

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.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.

The Rascals ARE deservedly in the HOF. I've had the great pleasure of seeing Felix Caveliere in concert twice in the last couple years, the man still sings just like he did back in the day and can still make that organ sing!

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.



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 Elvises 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.
Last edited by intheghetto on Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.

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.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.



Alright, this is now turning into a fake outrage discussion.

I never said The Rascals suck, nor did I say that they were not entitled to be in the RRHOF. What I did say is that in terms of influence they are less likely to be looked at as such, and if we're talking about how the hall of fame looks at 'influence' The Rascals are probably not the best example. Now back to the original point of discussion here, The Monkees. If you want to talk influence in terms of being a phenomenon The Monkees are definitely higher on that scale than any of the pop groups of that time that did similar music like The Rascals. Does that make The Monkees a better band? Of course not. Were they a bigger band? Yes.
Last edited by intheghetto on Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:07 pm

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.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.


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.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.

I'd think a greater honor would be recieving an invitation for a party at Doc's house.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:18 pm

MSNBC ran this today in regard to The Monkees' absence in the RRHOF

http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... -hall?lite


There is also an ONLINE PETITION rallying around the cause!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/Kretch07/petition.html

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:38 am

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.

Re: Should The Monkees be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

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.


Yeah it goes without saying that it'll be a damn shame, if and when they get in, that Davy's not going to be there.