But isn't that part of it? Isn't it to honor people who had an impact, influenced others, and became part of the cultural lexicon? Lots of inductees recorded very few albums or had few true hits, but they still made their mark. Granted, that makes things somewhat subjective, but does anyone think it should be just about the numbers? You wouldn't need a nomination committee if you just followed ironclad rules like, "once your sales reach 10 million, you're in" or "once you've had five No. 1 hits, you're in."

She basically did. She's still making money for the music industry.

I think that the Stones once had some kind of dispute with the owners of Rolling Stone magazine..that might explain it:shrug:

too high or too low?

it's interesting, someone said everyone hates this list because they look up one or 2 bands they care for and if they are not where they think they should be, decide the list is bad.

i really enjoyed seeing all inductees in one place and reading what the writer was thinking behind his reasoning. of course i think his reasoning behind Queen is laughable, for example, but there are many good arguments for some of the bands or performers. Roxy Music for example. or why are all these women still not inducted either once or twice for years now.

^^^Too low. Between Their Satanic Majesties Request and Goats Head Soup they had a fantastic run with 6 strong albums and great singles (Jumpin' Jack Flash anyone). That series alone should have secured them a comfortable place in the Top 5.

My Top 5 would be:
1. Aretha
2. The Beatles (I don't get them, but that's just me)
3. Stevie Wonder
4. The Rolling Stones
5. Joni Mitchell

Queen at 220? Well, okay, I'd see them in the Top 25, but what do I know.

Queen at 220 is disrespectful. You can't put The Beatles at #2 and Queen at #220.

I'd never get The Beatles either. No matter what you're listing, The Beatles are always in the first two places.

I definitely take issue with them calling ABBA a cartoon like the Archies or Josie and the Pussycats . They were a real band with a remarkable body of work in fact IMO the greatest pop band of all time. To say that they are not influential is also preposterous.. Madonna had to beg them to let her use a sample of one of their hits.

I mean, I love Stevie, but if Tina Turner and Diana Ross are not in it as solo artists (and I can't believe that they aren't. Seriously?) Stevie should not be inducted.

That is just not right!

Tina for one probably didn't give a damn ..Stevie on the other hand may be a ditz but she is a master manipulator and she wanted in badly .

Much of what the reviewer/list maker says is pretty insightful, though I don’t always agree with it. I think his take on Queen, particularly the way in which the surviving members allowed MTV to celebrate/commemorate Mercury without ever mentioning his sexual orientation and what ultimately killed him, is spot on. Do I think they deserve the RRHOF? Yes, but their inclusion is not without its difficulties. He completely nailed the Eagles and Chicago to the proverbial wall. Totally agreed on the absurdity of Rundgren not being inducted yet. Disagreed about Laura Nyro being a second-tier talent. Wonder why Rush is so downgraded. Completely agree about his critical readings of Van Halen, Journey, Def Leopard, and Bon Jovi. Think he’s way off-base about Bonnie Raitt as inconsequential. I find he’s quite shrewd about Jefferson Airplane, John Melloncamp, Billy Joel, Janet Jackson, and Bill Withers. And yes: why, oh why, has X not yet been inducted?

Anyway, his take on Stevie is not altogether fair. He’s right that on the basis of her solo work alone she would not likely have been inducted. However, he’s wrong in saying she’s only had 1.5 decent hits—or that most of her music is marred by 80s production. Some of it is, but a good deal of it transcends that. I’d have ranked her about 20-25 places higher than she was.

Yes he is absolutely right about X, the greatest American punk band, and New Order/Joy Division. And doesn’t he also mention Sex Pistols (but not PiL??!!). Anyway, I just have a hard block against any music critic who doesn’t realize the greatness of The Smiths and also Morrissey. They rival The Beatles, Roxy Music, The Rolling Stones. Also: where is Public Enemy??!!

The Smiths and Public Enemy are simply the two most consequential music groups of my lifetime.

And, yes, MJ transcends music with his music videos—he perfected the new artform, as alternative to segregationist Hollywood.

no Joy Division or New Order is disgraceful.
Chuck is top 10 for sure but while a founding father was essentially a style that stayed the same...the Beatles sold far more and went through many more changes and I'd say their influence is larger and more ever present and enduring.

Queen shouldn't be trashed like that but after putting out such brilliant early work later dissing is somewhat deserved. Innuendo was good though.

Did you see who wrote the article?

In this case, that’s a moot point.

Agreed. My least favorite album is Hot Space. So, yeah…. But you can't put them at #220 just because of one or two album.
Innuendo is brilliant, but I'm totally biased. :angel:

Nirvana better than the Rolling Stones, The Police, Pink Floyd, Elton John, Eric Clapton, James Taylor, Michael Jackson, Santana, ACDC, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, and of course, Fleetwood Mac???? Really????

Electric Light Orchestra number 163. I'm dying, That's Enough For Me...