Hall of Fame Nominations

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by David

The thinking seems to be, among some fans & members of the voting panel, that if you've done your time (25 years), you get inducted. Won't virtually all recognizable names sooner or later be inducted? Outside of marketing & brouhaha & a TV show you can broadcast every year, I just don't see what the actual purpose is to this hall of fame. Traditionally, halls of fame are reserved for the cream of the crop, the best of the best, whether it's baseball or music or fiction-writing. You can always argue about the choices; there's no last word. But if you look at the inductees from 1986 to 2000, just about every act with a name is there. The same thing is liable to be true for the 1970s & the 1980s when enough time has passed.

it really does seem like all you need to do is have one memorable album and wait your 25 years and you are in.
it is more like a musical history project than a hall of fame -

Originally Posted by Sarah

I think think Mellencamp's version of "rock" is incredibly generic. I understand your point about FarmAid or whatever else, and that's good.. but I'm talking musical merit here. And if you want to argue that he had one sublime album, that's fine too, but I think these nominations should take the entire body of work into account. And to my ears, they really just are not that good. And that's what I'm posting about.. "if i was in charge of the inductions". Especially when there are so many other artists who haven't made it in yet, as Steve MacD mentioned. It's a crime that those groups have been left off.

.

i agree that it really should be on the body of work and kept to rock and roll or at least split up like you say sarah - a diff. wing for each genre.