You are a Hall of Fame Voter

danger boy

Journey's Faithfully was quite good. and still a fave of a lot of people. Journey had a pretty decent career span.

comfortablycurt

daboyz wrote: »

None of the above?:eek::eek::eek:

Curt, I'm putting you up for banishment from the RAS and you may get the ignore button on top of it.:p You are flippin' crazy if you feel none of those bands deserve to be in the HOF. I'd say almost all.

lol...I am not a fan at all, of basically any of those bands. I like Yes to some extent...the Doobies have some good stuff.

Rush?-I can't even stand listening to them. The shrill annoying voice gets to me after the first few seconds. Neil Pert is a ridiculously over rated drummer(best in the world according to some:rolleyes:). He's a far cry from an amazing drummer IMO.

Kiss?-Is one of my least favorite bands that has ever existed IMHO. They were a merchandising, marketing machine and made a lot of money, but aside from a few songs that are "alright"...their music does absolutely nothing for me, aside from make me want to run from the room screaming.

Yes?-They've got some cool stuff, but I'm still not really a big fan.

Chicago?-Good band...but they just don't quite tip my cup of tea. The horn sections are cool at times. I have a gigantic Chicago poster that I found in one of my old apartments. It's huge...something like 4'x6'. I've got it put away right now though. After Yes and the Doobies, Chicago would be my third pic here(if I had to pick).

Heart?-Again, they've got some decent stuff, but it just doesn't do it for me...at all.

Journey?-Makes me contemplate suicide. Nuff said.

Def Leppard?-Makes me contemplate suicide even more than Journey.

Doobie Brothers?-In hind sight...I'd actually probably vote for the Doobies here. They've got some pretty cool stuff, but in general, I don't get into them much.

Hall and Oates?-In fairness, I haven't listened to a lot of their stuff...What I've heard isn't bad, but I haven't really heard enough of their stuff to have an opinion one way or the other.



All that being said, the rock and roll hall of fame is basically a joke anyway IMO.

comfortablycurt

Keiko wrote: »

Damn, Curt! You from the late 80's/90's or something? A Fiddy Cent Fan? WTF??? Neil Peart over rated?

My finger's hovering over the ignore button.

Well, actually yes, I am from the late 80's and 90's. I was born in 1986, and grew up in the 90's.;)

That's not to say that I listen to much music from those time periods though. Nearly all of the music that I listen to is at least 20-30 years old or so.

Fiddy Cent? Nah, I prefer Half Dolla.:p

Neil Pert over rated? Yes...in a VERY huge way IMO. I have never been listening to Rush and found myself thinking "wow this drummer is incredible".


A lot of you would really hate me if I told you that I think Les Claypool completely blows. He is, without question, THE MOST over rated bass player that has ever lived, and all of his songs are cheesy, pointless, stupid "works of nothing". Just thought I'd stir the pot a little more.:p




Just my $.02.;)

Norm Apter

I'm gonna have to pretty much back up my man Curt here, though its my guess that things look drastically different for people who experienced the 1970s directly, which neither Curt nor I did in a musical sense.

OTOH, both Curt (sorry to be your spokesperson again) and I like plenty of 70s stuff very passionately (In Floyd We Trust, to take but one example; Dylan, CCR, The Who, Marley, Stevie Wonder, the mighty Zep to take others). They just happen not to be on the list.

Now, I'm speaking for myself: many of the aforementioned bands didn't seem to fare that well in the 1980s, to put it charitably (Heart, Journey, Yes, Chicago, Hall and Oates, even Rush...do I even need to mention Kiss (?) and perhaps their 80s production -- which was really pretty bad -- skews our perception of their entire career, perhaps unfairly so. I think Rush is technically brilliant, but their music does little for me. And as for Neil Pert, again technically excellent but I'd take Bonzo, Keith Moon or Mickey Hart over him any day of the week. But thats a matter of personal taste...emotion over technical prowess.

If someone put a gun to my head, well then maybe I'd go with Yes (because of their role in the Prog rock movement) and the Doobie Brothers. But thats the best I could do and even they seem like compromises to me *hides under chair*

comfortablycurt

Norm Apter wrote: »

I'm gonna have to pretty much back up my man Curt here, though its my guess that things look drastically different for people who experienced the 1970s directly, which neither Curt nor I did in a musical sense.

OTOH, both Curt (sorry to be your spokesperson again) and I like plenty of 70s stuff very passionately (In Floyd We Trust, to take but one example; Dylan, CCR, The Who, Marley, Stevie Wonder, the mighty Zep to take others). They just happen not to be on the list.

Now, I'm speaking for myself: many of the aforementioned bands didn't seem to fare that well in the 1980s, to put it charitably (Heart, Journey, Yes, Chicago, Hall and Oates, even Rush...do I even need to mention Kiss (?) and perhaps their 80s production -- which was really pretty bad -- skews our perception of their entire career, perhaps unfairly so. I think Rush is technically brilliant, but their music does little for me. And as for Neil Pert, again technically excellent but I'd take Bonzo, Keith Moon or Mickey Hart over him any day of the week. But thats a matter of personal taste...emotion over technical prowess.

If someone put a gun to my head, well then maybe I'd go with Yes (because of their role in the Prog rock movement) and the Doobie Brothers. But thats the best I could do and even they seem like compromises to me *hides under chair*

Exactly! I couldn't have put it better.

Rush is an excellent band from a technical standpoint. Neil Peart is an excellent drummer(from a technical standpoint), but there's a lot more to music than technical ability/skill. Creativity and soul are much more key to music than technical ability. Some of the greatest musicians that have ever lived didn't know a lick of music theory or anything like that. Like I said, Rush is a good band, that I absolutely can't stand listening to. Pert's a good drummer from a technical stand point, but I can think of at least 20 drummers off the top of my head that I think are MUCH better. He just doesn't have the soul that other drummers have. As Norm mentioned above, I'd take the drumming of the Dead's Mickey Hart(especially when he's with Bill Kreutzmann), over Pert any day. Tool's Danny Carey is a vastly superior drummer IMO as well.

This is in the same grain as a lot of other things. A lot of people will say that the likes of Steve Vai and Joe Satriani are the greatest guitarists of all time. The ARE NOT. Note that I didn't say "IMO". That's because they are without doubt, not the greatest guitarists of all time. They're excellent technical players, and are very proficient at masturbating with their guitars, but they don't have the soul. Neither of them would even make my top 50 or even top 100 guitarists of all time. Not to toot my own horn, but I think I'm a better guitar player than either of them. No, I can't shred like they can, but I'd like to see either of them sit down with a group of blues/folk musicians and have a free jam. They would be utterly lost. That's not speculation either. Technical players forget that they can use their own creativity. A lot of what I write and play on guitar isn't correct from a technical standpoint. The point is, it doesn't have to be. If it sounds good, play it.

The likes of Vai and Satriani have forgotten this. Everything they play is technical, by the book stuff. Yes, there's a right and a wrong way to play a guitar, but there is also a lot to be said for individual creativity. You can say that they're your favorite guitarist, but no amount of that is ever going to make them the "greatest".


Next, we'll be discussing how over rated Jimi Hendrix is!!!!

-takes cover-



Norm-You and I seem to be on the same page about a lot of things. Aside from some cabling differences, you've even got basically the exact 2 channel rig that I'm going to be putting together over the next year...lol;)

Amherst

Slam Dunk for Yes!
There are others i would prefer over some of the one's in the list. Maybe a little Joe Walsh anyone?

concealer404

I'm one year older than Curt.

I like Rush.

But then again, i'm also a HUGE fan of The Mars Volta, so........

comfortablycurt

Keiko wrote: »

That's it! :mad:

Pray I never meet you, Curt. I will make you eat your own boogers and give you a wedgey for this sacrilege.

Now don't take me wrong. Jimi Hendrix was an excellent guitarist...by all means.

The greatest guitarist of all time? Not by a very wide margin IMO. Rolling Stone says that he is...but that Top 100 list is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

Hendrix was definitely one of the most unique guitarists of all time, and he did somewhat pioneer a style of playing...but he was also an incredibly sloppy player a lot of the time. Not all the time necessarily...his earlier stuff was much better than the later stuff IMO.

By the way, I eat my own boogers and give myself wedgies all the time...so it'll be nice to have someone do the hard part for me.:p

concealer404 wrote: »

I'm one year older than Curt.

I like Rush.

But then again, i'm also a HUGE fan of The Mars Volta, so........

Well I guess that's it then...I'm just too young to be a Rush fan.;)

The Mars Volta has some pretty cool stuff from what I've heard. I can't say that I've really heard a lot of their music though.

shack

comfortablycurt wrote:

The greatest guitarist of all time?

Hendrix was definitely one of the most unique guitarists of all time, and he did somewhat pioneer a style of playing...but he was also an incredibly sloppy player a lot of the time. Not all the time necessarily...his earlier stuff was much better than the later stuff IMO.

Rock music of that era was NEVER about technical skill or musical ability. It was more about passion, invovation, uniqueness, pushing the envelope. etc.


Hendrix's greatness is in what he did DIFFERENT...and what that influenced...not how he stacked up against a classically trained guitarist. If greatness is defined by your influence and followers in what you did...then Hendrix may very well be the greatest of all time.

cubdog

Gram Parsons. He might be the most influencial musican not in the hall.

cubdog

comfortablycurt

shack wrote: »

Rock music of that era was NEVER about technical skill or musical ability. It was more about passion, invovation, uniqueness, pushing the envelope. etc.


Hendrix's greatness is in what he did DIFFERENT...and what that influenced...not how he stacked up against a classically trained guitarist. If greatness is defined by your influence and followers in what you did...then Hendrix may very well be the greatest of all time.

Don't take me wrong at all. I don't dislike Hendrix or anything like that. I just strongly disagree with him being commonly referred to as the greatest guitarist of all time. I could care less how well someone has been trained. I even mentioned that in a post above. Technical prowess is not at all what makes someone a good guitar player...and Hendrix was very far from a technical player.

He definitely has some of the most unique playing ever, but nothing I've ever heard him play matches up to many other guitarists(IMO, of course). IMHO, Jerry Garcia's mastery of the guitar has never been matched by anyone...and probably never will be. Say what you will about the Dead, but Jerry Garcia is one of the greatest guitarists of all time. That fact can hardly even be debated. If you think otherwise, then you've never really listened to a good live Garcia solo. I'll find a good video and post it in here in a while, for those of you who may not be familiar with the Dead/Garcia.

I'd also put David Gilmour far ahead of Hendrix. Along with Duane Allman and Eric Clapton ahead of Hendrix. Personally, I'd even put Stevie Ray Vaughn(who's biggest influence was Hendrix) in front of Hendrix. Even listening to Hendrix play Voodoo Chile(Slight Return), and then listening to SRV play his version of it...I prefer the SRV version. The playing is just a lot more "on". He's hitting the notes cleaner and more precisely, and the various licks that bridge between parts just seem to flow much more naturally.

Like I said, Hendrix is still great. I'm extremely critical of guitar players though...very much more so than the average person. I've been a guitarist for 13 years though, and whenever I hear a guitar part in a song...I can't help but over analyze it. I'd probably put Hendrix in my top 20-25 guitarists of all time...but that's just me.

Demiurge

Neil Peart overrated, now I have heard it all. I'm very big into prog, but not a Rush fan. Been a huge music follower of Cedric Bixler Zavala and Omar Rodr

mrbigbluelight

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Hendrix was definitely one of the most unique guitarists of all time, and he did somewhat pioneer a style of playing...but he was also an incredibly sloppy player a lot of the time.

Well ....... just a second .......

Hey, guys, get the 4 X 4 with the railroad spike in it from underneath the stairs, I'm going to be needing it

Okay, let me just say ..... wait a second ...... hang on .........

shack wrote: »

Rock music of that era was NEVER about technical skill or musical ability. It was more about passion, invovation, uniqueness, pushing the envelope. etc.


Hendrix's greatness is in what he did DIFFERENT...and what that influenced...not how he stacked up against a classically trained guitarist. If greatness is defined by your influence and followers in what you did...then Hendrix may very well be the greatest of all time.

Whew, that was close for Comfortably Curt ! Due to Shack's timely intervention, CC will be allowed to live. It was close, though.

mrbigbluelight

BTW: I was so upset that I actually voted for "Hall & Oates" ! :eek:

George Grand

Rush - No because they suck. Musically intelligent? Give me a break.
Kiss - No because they suck as bad.
Yes - No. Unless it is the Pretentious English Rock HoF. Then they're in.
Chicago - Couple nice tunes there. They chickened out after the first couple albums which had some experimental music on them. At least they experimented.
Heart - No.
Journey - First album had some good instrumentals. Then they sucked.
Def Leppard - No response required. These guys were terrible.
Doobie Bros - Good first few albums, then not so good.
Hall & Oates - You should be killed.

Well I reached out/touched and hope this brightens someone's day.

Screamin' Jay Hawkins and Karen Carpenter

danger boy

George by all means don't hold back on how you feel.

each group has contributed to the music of the 80's.. some better than others.. the only ones I don't agree with being condsidered to the HOF would be Hall and Oates. they suck.

domflane

Curt, you've officially lost me pal. Neil Peart overrated? Hendrix too? I had a feeling you'd be a Dead head, jam band lover. You say you don't like technical players, but you bash Hendrix for being sloppy . . He was the most creative, innovative guitar player who ever lived, period. I can't even listen to the Dead for more than 10 minutes. Everything sounds the same to me. There's something to be said for a cohesive song that has a beginning and an end. It takes a special skill to write a song and have it become popular and IMO it takes less skill to stand on stage for an hour and make stuff up. Not to say that they aren't talented, they're all good players, they're just not original and innovative.

domflane

And for the record, nobody plays Voodoo Child like Jimi. That was the heaviest guitar sound the world had ever heard at the time, and while SRV might play a good rendition, he never even comes close.

AudioGenics

tough choices as they are all great ...

hearingimpared

shack wrote: »

Rock music of that era was NEVER about technical skill or musical ability. It was more about passion, invovation, uniqueness, pushing the envelope. etc.


Hendrix's greatness is in what he did DIFFERENT...and what that influenced...not how he stacked up against a classically trained guitarist. If greatness is defined by your influence and followers in what you did...then Hendrix may very well be the greatest of all time.

They didn't call Hendrix "the man they called 'God'" for no reason.

hearingimpared

That's funny as all hell Mike. Curt look out Bro. It looks like a super, atomic wedgy is in your future! LOL!!!

hearingimpared

Oye Vey, everytime that pic is posted I have to wash my eyes out with bleach.:eek:

Knucklehead

I think its pretty cool how the different tastes in music in general has shined through on this thread....I mean weve mentioned everything from Karen Carpenter to Def Leppard. All of these people in the industry have brought something to the table. Im always surprised by the answers musicians give of different genre of who their influences were.

George Grand

Really good drummers make their way about the business, playing with all kinds of different bands. HE, doesn't.

What's with the 3 man power trio thing anyway? Originality? Cream, Hendrix. Hell, Blue Cheer was more original and invigorating with their version of Summertime Blues.

If you guys can vote Rush, I can vote Karen Carpenter.

hearingimpared

George, being a drummer guru, where would you place Carl Palmer in your list of top drummers?

hearingimpared

George Grand wrote: »

If you guys can vote Rush, I can vote Karen Carpenter.

Keiko wrote: »

I love Karen Carpenter. She had such an incredible voice and left us way too soon. I'm fortunate to have a lot of Carpenters on vinyl and the SACD of the singles. Excellent stuff.

I'm in the same camp. She had such a beautiful soothing tone to her voice, like velvety butter, like an angel singing. Have her on many, many LPs.

George Grand

hearingimpared wrote: »

George, being a drummer guru, where would you place Carl Palmer in your list of top drummers?

He wouldn't be on it. He would be on the same "I Take Myself Much Too Seriously" list as the other guy.

hearingimpared

George Grand wrote: »

He wouldn't be on it. He would be on the same "I Take Myself Much Too Seriously" list as the other guy.

Interesting, duly noted.

George Grand

Just my opinion.

Think there is a reason that a guy like Hal Blaine has drummed on more Top 100 hit singles than any other human? Think there is a reason a guy like Johnny Guerin (Tom Scott/LA Express) was one of the greatest studio drummers, playing on more themes, jingles, commercials than you can imagine? It is for several reasons. They were DRUMMERS. They could lend their expertise to ANY style, and any group. They did not feel they had to fill every space with drum ****, and played with taste. They were extremely dependable, and were known for all the **** they WOULDN'T throw in.

These other "virtuosos" play a million notes a minute (Cobham did it better and more precisely), but probably can't play Mustang Sally or In The Midnight Hour.

TNRabbit

Chicago is beating out Yes? I won't be back on this thread again...that's a sign of the Apocolypse~