2015 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees

[HollywoodLeo]

Really? I have to spell out what that means? To a couple of sports nerds who SHOULD know the meaning based on past experience with NFL, MLB, etc HoFs.

"maybe eventually but not first ballot" is a REALLY simple concept. I'll break it down for ya...

* First word: "MAYBE". I didn't say "OH for sure, but not yet", I said "MAYBE". They MAY have some of what ~I~ think it takes to get into the HoF, but I wouldn't put them down as "oh hell yes, absolute shoe-ins". JM2CW

* Last words: "Not first ballot", what that means is that I wouldn't put them in because there are a SLEW of FAR more deserving bands/artists that should be in FIRST. If those bands aren't in, why the fuck should GD get in? That's why "not first ballot".



Leo: Yes, a resume can very well get better with age. The accomplishments by themselves? No. However, when ranking them up against their peers both before and after them becomes more clear with time. Baseball example. At the time that Bert Blyleven retired, he was #3 on the all-time strikeouts thrown list. At this point in time, 22 years after he retired, he's STILL at #5. Only Clemens and Randy Johnson crept up and surpassed his numbers and both of those guys are considered shoe-in HOF'ers. Yet, it took 19 years (14th year of eligibility) for him to get into the HOF. Look at the other "shoe-ins" or potential shoe-ins that haven't surpassed his numbers in just this one category. Maddox, Schilling, Martinez, Smoltz (?), Mussina, Sabathia (who is over 1100 shy after 14 seasons). No, I'm not saying SO's is the be-all, end-all, but it is ONE category on a resume that is factored in. Blyleven's stock in that aspect rose over time because those numbers held up.

SO, yes, a resume can very easily get better with age.


Musically, Black Sabbath got in in 2006, Metallica got in in 2009. Metallica got in in their 2nd year of eligibility yet Sabbath had to sit and wait for 16 years after eligibility. Why do some bands get in right away and others have to wait forever, if they EVER get in? How does Metallica get in before Judas Priest or Iron Maiden when both of these two bands have as much to do with the success as any band since Sabbath. *shrug* The whole RnR Hall of Sham is just that, a fucking sham, but I don't have enough time to go into a worthy diatribe about that. Bottom line, I don't agree with GD getting in right away, if at all. Whether you agree with me or not, hopefully you two understand what I meant.

So, what exactly makes GD a first ballot shoe-in in your eyes? Similarly, shouldn't The Offspring be on this ballot ahead of GD?

I get what you're saying, but if you logically argue that someone's performance relative to their future peers as time goes on can alter their HOF status then doesn't logic dictate we should also be able to remove someone from the HOF?

I don't really believe that. I believe someone is a HOFer based on how they perform relative to their own contemporaries....ie the people who played the game during the same era. Over time rules change, dynamics of the game change (or industry when it comes to music) and other things change. For instance, we're seeing a lot more passing yards in the NFL today because of all the rule changes that protect the passing game. Would Peyton Manning get quite as many passing yards 30 years ago? I don't know, the rules were different. That's why I don't think it's fair when people try and do things like compare Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth. It's practically impossible because of the different dynamics of the game.

As to your question of Green Day....I think they've had enough of an impact on the music industry to be in the hall of fame. Because of my viewpoint on "first ballot" versus otherwise I don't think it matters which ballot they get in on, I just think they should be in.

[Providence A's]

It's somewhat of a joke (the HoF), but for the sake of argument:

I don't really understand how one could argue that the Smiths belong when the Cure isn't even in. Whether anyone here likes them or not, they've had probably a bigger impact than the Smiths, have a much more extensive catalog, and are still going. Hell, the Smiths have more compilation albums than LPs and EPs combined lol (10 to 5). Don't get me wrong. I like some Smiths, but I don't really see them getting in...at least not now.

I don't particularly care for Green Day, but I'm sure they'll get in.

NIN will get in. I doubt Trent Reznor cares, but they'll get in as they should.

[Tobywan]

I mentioned The Smiths because they're on the ballot. I completely agree about The Cure, they are one of my favorites, but I think they have only been nominated once and didn't get picked. Depeche Mode is another and if you go with more mass appeal how has Journey gotten snubbed all these years? In my view the breakdown is in the nominating phase more than the voting.

Then again I may not know who truly deserves recognition. I used to get laughed at because friends and co-workers said I "liked everybody". During my years of concert hopping I would see Billy Joel, John Denver and Bon Jovi one month then the Psychedelic Furs, Smithereens and Big Audio Dynamite the next.

I'm typing this while listening to the biggest hits of 1975, KC and the Sunshine Band are on right now! So what the hell do I know??

[Providence A's]

I haven't kept that much track of it to be honest. I knew the Cure wasn't in. I didn't know Depeche Mode wasn't. Dumb. Again, the whole thing is kind of a joke for the most part. Music preferences are subject as well all know anyway.

Listening to a non-album Boards of Canada track right now...

I like some moderate-to-well known stuff, but a lot of what I have on my collection isn't exactly top 40 hits from the radio lol.