Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame! Now it's official.

[manicstreet]

Just some quick examples of why this thing makes very little sense.

Steven Adler - drums - in band five (5) years - no writing credits
Matt Sorum - drums - in band seven (7) (?) years - no writing credits
Brain - drums - in band six (6)+ years - writing credits [not inducted]
Gilby Clarke - rhythm guitars - in band two (2) years - no writing credits [not inducted]
Tommy Stinson - bass - in band 13+ years - writing credits [not inducted]


I'm not saying any past members weren't important for the band at the time or anything like that.

Just wondering how one drummer is deemed more important than another based on the fact that he was in the band when they were the biggest band in the world. In a totally different era, when MTV played music videos and downloading was something a few geeks did.

Why is the RNRHOF acting like GN'R ended? So they can get themselves some publicity by promoting the magical reunion?

/jarmo

I love the new band & I am sure the R&RHOF is pushing for a reunion, but the correct members are being inducted. I think it is silly that the Chili peppers are inducting their new guitarist. I would feel the same way if any of the current members of guns were being inducted.

[AxlReznor]

The Billboard 200 is sort of a pop chart in itself, its for popular music, not sure why everyone is fighting over this.

Skid Row's Slave to the Grind became the first "metal band" to top the Billboard top 200 during the beginning of the soundscan era-it was a big deal back then, followed by Metallica, Guns, and Pantera-I know were way off topic, but it did mean something-google it.

Exactly... it topped the Billboard 200, which is the general pop chart, which makes it a pop record. They said "metal band", because that is the genre that Skid Row belonged to. Because pop isn't a genre, it's a broad term meaning popular. What's so difficult to understand about this?

[AxlReznor]

This analogy has been used to death but it really is  like Jagger replacing Richards, or Plant replacing Page, not everybody is going to go along with that and I understand that.

Yet Pink Floyd existed without Roger Waters, Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne, AC/DC without Bon Scott....

/jarmo

I can't be sure, as I wasn't there, but I don't think Black Sabbath without Ozzy was accepted by Sabbath fans until fairly recently. And even then it's only the albums Dio played on. As more members left, eventually leaving Tony Iommi as the only original member in the band, they gradually lost their influence. They were pretty much an embarrassment from the mid-80's until their reunion tour.
Pink Floyd without Roger Waters, I haven't heard anybody say anything good about. That's why it was such a big deal when they briefly reformed at Live 8.
AC/DC, granted... but if Bon Scott was still alive when it happened, I doubt 'Back In Black' would have been as well received.

Is it right? Probably not. But that's how it goes. People get attached to the people in the band rather than the music (disclaimer: the music Sabbath released post-Dio was shit, and therefore it was right).

[Bodhi]

This analogy has been used to death but it really is  like Jagger replacing Richards, or Plant replacing Page, not everybody is going to go along with that and I understand that.

Yet Pink Floyd existed without Roger Waters, Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne, AC/DC without Bon Scott....

I'm surprised some of you haven't already said this, but I think  the HOF really could care less if the Izzy shows up or Steven or Matt, their whole goal is to get Axl and Slash on the same stage together.  That is what will make the most headlines on Monday.

That seems to be the mindset of most of the "reunion fans" as well. Did you notice how few actually bothered to stop and ask "What about Izzy?"?






/jarmo

Totally right on Pink Floyd, Ac/Dc etc.. I think that if GNR keeps touring and puts out more records and has a bigger body of work that doesn't have the old guys on it people will finally get over it.  Some people never will.  But I think if more people hear what this line up is capable of they will really dig it.  I have taken a lot of friends to GNR shows over the last 10 years, most of them were skeptical, but when the show was over they were all blown away.

[Bodhi]

This analogy has been used to death but it really is  like Jagger replacing Richards, or Plant replacing Page, not everybody is going to go along with that and I understand that.

Yet Pink Floyd existed without Roger Waters, Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne, AC/DC without Bon Scott....

/jarmo

I can't be sure, as I wasn't there, but I don't think Black Sabbath without Ozzy was accepted by Sabbath fans until fairly recently. And even then it's only the albums Dio played on. As more members left, eventually leaving Tony Iommi as the only original member in the band, they gradually lost their influence. They were pretty much an embarrassment from the mid-80's until their reunion tour.
Pink Floyd without Roger Waters, I haven't heard anybody say anything good about. That's why it was such a big deal when they briefly reformed at Live 8.
AC/DC, granted... but if Bon Scott was still alive when it happened, I doubt 'Back In Black' would have been as well received.

Is it right? Probably not. But that's how it goes. People get attached to the people in the band rather than the music (disclaimer: the music Sabbath released post-Dio was shit, and therefore it was right).

and to add even more lunacy to the Hall of Fame selection process, wasn't Dio not even inducted with Black Sabbath, even though he was the lead singer at one point? 

[volcano62]

This analogy has been used to death but it really is  like Jagger replacing Richards, or Plant replacing Page, not everybody is going to go along with that and I understand that.

Yet Pink Floyd existed without Roger Waters, Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne, AC/DC without Bon Scott....

I'm surprised some of you haven't already said this, but I think  the HOF really could care less if the Izzy shows up or Steven or Matt, their whole goal is to get Axl and Slash on the same stage together.  That is what will make the most headlines on Monday.

That seems to be the mindset of most of the "reunion fans" as well. Did you notice how few actually bothered to stop and ask "What about Izzy?"?






/jarmo

Totally right on Pink Floyd, Ac/Dc etc.. I think that if GNR keeps touring and puts out more records and has a bigger body of work that doesn't have the old guys on it people will finally get over it.  Some people never will.  But I think if more people hear what this line up is capable of they will really dig it.  I have taken a lot of friends to GNR shows over the last 10 years, most of them were skeptical, but when the show was over they were all blown away.

EXACTLY...people seem to forget the Division Bell tour was HUGE without Roger Waters.

The Division Bell Tour in 1994 is the the highest-grossing tour in rock music history to that date, with the band playing the entirety of The Dark Side of the Moon in some shows, for the first time since 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_Bell_Tour

[AxlsMainMan]

Maybe my favorite Pink Floyd album 

[peter7411226]

Unfortunately the current incarnation of GNR doesnt really do a good job of marketing themselves. When most people think of Guns they think of the old band. Real fans know that they are still an active band. I think Guns needs to do a better job of promoting the current members. There has never been an official band picture. If you google GNR you get pics of the old band.

[jarmo]

I can't be sure, as I wasn't there, but I don't think Black Sabbath without Ozzy was accepted by Sabbath fans until fairly recently. And even then it's only the albums Dio played on. As more members left, eventually leaving Tony Iommi as the only original member in the band, they gradually lost their influence. They were pretty much an embarrassment from the mid-80's until their reunion tour..

Times change, trends come and go etc.

There was a time in history when Led Zeppelin still existed but they weren't considered cool.

Same with Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones or any band that has kept going for more than two years.



I'm pretty sure that even if Ozzy had never left Black Sabbath, during the early to mid-80s, they would've been laughed at.

Aerosmith reunited, it wasn't an instant success.


AC/DC had a dip in popularity too.

 

Unfortunately the current incarnation of GNR doesnt really do a good job of marketing themselves. When most people think of Guns they think of the old band. Real fans know that they are still an active band. I think Guns needs to do a better job of promoting the current members. There has never been an official band picture. If you google GNR you get pics of the old band.

Pretty much the same for everybody.

If I say "the Rolling Stones", do you think of A Bigger Bang?



So for people to say the RNRHOF is only inducting members who were part of a band when they were the most popular commercially, it seems a bit weird. Since when is it about how many records you sold?

I get it, you can't choose everybody. But what's the criteria? Record sales alone?





/jarmo

[Jude]

Wow, it was very interesting to hear Duff's opinion about the situation. I've always loved Duff and i always will because he really seems to be one of the wisest guys from the old era, i wish all the ex-members could think the same way... Now we all know that at least the one and only Duff "Rose" McKagan is attending the ceremony.  

The best part about his text:

This whole deal, I hope, goes off without a hitch. I do hope we can achieve some grace in our acceptance. And I hope this grace, is enough, in the end, for the best rock and roll fans in the world. The Guns N' (f---ing) Roses fans.

This has not so much to do about the ceremony, but it was touching to read this:

No one worked harder than us back then, and we were very fortunate to have met each other in those dirty back alleys of Hollywood sometime in 1984. We meshed and wrote, created thunder and beauty, and parlayed our real-life experience into an album that somehow related to a whole angsty world that felt just like us right then and there. It was a brilliant time.

[peter7411226]

Unfortunately the current incarnation of GNR doesnt really do a good job of marketing themselves. When most people think of Guns they think of the old band. Real fans know that they are still an active band. I think Guns needs to do a better job of promoting the current members. There has never been an official band picture. If you google GNR you get pics of the old band.

Pretty much the same for everybody.

If I say "the Rolling Stones", do you think of A Bigger Bang?






/jarmo

[/quote]

My point was about promoting lineups not albums. For the exception of die hards most people don't know who is in the band. I think they need to do a better job of showing the world who is in the band. Like I said when most people think of GNR they think of the old band. Its frankly unfair to the people in the band now.

[jarmo]

And do you think this kind of ceremony "celebrating the past" is helping GN'R in 2012?




/jarmo

[peter7411226]

Wow, it was very interesting to hear Duff's opinion about the situation. I've always loved Duff and i always will because he really seems to be one of the wisest guys from the old era, i wish all the ex-members could think the same way... Now we all know that at least the one and only Duff "Rose" McKagan is attending the ceremony.  

The best part about his text:

This whole deal, I hope, goes off without a hitch. I do hope we can achieve some grace in our acceptance. And I hope this grace, is enough, in the end, for the best rock and roll fans in the world. The Guns N' (f---ing) Roses fans.

This has not so much to do about the ceremony, but it was touching to read this:

No one worked harder than us back then, and we were very fortunate to have met each other in those dirty back alleys of Hollywood sometime in 1984. We meshed and wrote, created thunder and beauty, and parlayed our real-life experience into an album that somehow related to a whole angsty world that felt just like us right then and there. It was a brilliant time.

I agree with everything he says. The struggles they had helped shape there music and it was magic. I think thats why most people identify with the original lineup. They were a bunch of bad asses who actually clawed there way to the top. Other people entering the band entered an already established band.

[peter7411226]

And do you think this kind of ceremony "celebrating the past" is helping GN'R in 2012?




/jarmo

It can't hurt. Any promotion is good promotion. I'm sure with all the media coverage album sales will soar. At least for the first few albums.

[LongGoneDay]

Unfortunately the current incarnation of GNR doesnt really do a good job of marketing themselves. When most people think of Guns they think of the old band. Real fans know that they are still an active band. I think Guns needs to do a better job of promoting the current members. There has never been an official band picture. If you google GNR you get pics of the old band.

I don't get the whole marketing debate.

The music is the marketing. Put out a song that resonates with fans, and problem solved.
Easier said then done, yes, but my point is, no one gives a shit who the new guitarist or drummer is until they hear a song they enjoy.

[peter7411226]

Unfortunately the current incarnation of GNR doesnt really do a good job of marketing themselves. When most people think of Guns they think of the old band. Real fans know that they are still an active band. I think Guns needs to do a better job of promoting the current members. There has never been an official band picture. If you google GNR you get pics of the old band.

I don't get the whole marketing debate.

The music is the marketing. Put out a song that resonates with fans, and problem solved.
Easier said then done, yes, but my point is, no one gives a shit who the new guitarist or drummer is until they hear a song they enjoy.

I would agree with you if it were a new band. This is an already established band. Unfortunately when people think of GNR they think of the old band. No one has ever done anything to promote the new band. Like I said before there isnt even an official band picture.

[FunkyMonkey]

I saw this comment posted, did anyone hear Eddie Trunk say this?

Trunk said on Sirius yesterday that he is hearing Axl will not even be showing up for ceremony.

[LunsJail]

Unfortunately the current incarnation of GNR doesnt really do a good job of marketing themselves. When most people think of Guns they think of the old band. Real fans know that they are still an active band. I think Guns needs to do a better job of promoting the current members. There has never been an official band picture. If you google GNR you get pics of the old band.

I don't get the whole marketing debate.

The music is the marketing. Put out a song that resonates with fans, and problem solved.
Easier said then done, yes, but my point is, no one gives a shit who the new guitarist or drummer is until they hear a song they enjoy.

I would agree with you if it were a new band. This is an already established band. Unfortunately when people think of GNR they think of the old band. No one has ever done anything to promote the new band. Like I said before there isnt even an official band picture.

Yeah, but back to LongGoneDay's point. Who gives a shit about a band picture of a band they don't know the songs of. You gotta market the music and get people to pay attention to the band. Which, in 2012, is a tricky thing to do considering MTV and rock radio are dead as a duck.

[volcano62]

I saw this comment posted, did anyone hear Eddie Trunk say this?

Trunk said on Sirius yesterday that he is hearing Axl will not even be showing up for ceremony.

I didn't expect Axl to take part in this circus. Dizzy won't be there either if that is the case.
Saul and Adler should hang their heads in shame.

[LunsJail]

Saul and Adler should hang their heads in shame.

For what? Showing up?