RnR Hall of Fame 2009 Inductees

[Hooahguy]

Metallica=Cheap pop sell out metal. I'm sorry Hooah but it's true.

i guess everyone is entitled to their opinion...
i take your opinion with a grain of salt, since you seem to be a huge fan of southern rock, so....
you cant deny that albums like Master of puppets and Ride the Lightning are bad... you cant.

[Ronin]

Run-D.M.C.
.....
DJ Fontana

the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame uh?

[Thermal]

I don't necessarily agree with SFTS, and the word pop didn't spring to mind, but you do have a metallica obsession

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Metallica would be good if they just got a new singer, like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcub7YxI98

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I have to say Metallica gets far too repetitive for my tastes, but it's not like more interesting and smaller artists are likely to get in.

[Hooahguy]

Metallica would be good if they just got a new singer, like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcub7YxI98

meh. personally i like having James Hetfield as a singer.

I have to say Metallica gets far too repetitive for my tastes, but it's not like more interesting and smaller artists are likely to get in.

the repetitive side of Metallica happened when Cliff Burton died and And Justice for All came out. after that album they moved to the non-metal roots.
even though i love metallica, i hate the St. Anger album and dislike the Load and Re-Load albums.
i was glad that Death Magnetic (kinda) returned to the roots of albums like MoP and RtL.

[PanzerJaeger]

i take your opinion with a grain of salt, since you seem to be a huge fan of southern rock, so....

And George Michael!

Seriously though, the Rock Hall of Fame has been a joke(and a money making venture) for a long time... Isn't Madonna an inductee?

[naut]

In the wise words of the Sex Pistols, "that hall of fame is a urine* stain".

*They used a naughtier word, but you get the picture.

[Reverend Joe]

...Metallica? ...Rock and Roll?

No.

I would understand them being in a heavy metal hall of fame, but they don't belong in a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

As a matter of fact, so don't a lot of people (Elton John, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mack -- Prince?! What the hell is he doing in Rock and Roll?!) So, yeah, I guess I don't have a problem with the RnR Hall of Fame inducting Metallica.

Edit: I should add I'm not saying anyone's taste in music is worse than mine. Just that there's a limit to what Rock and Roll is; it can't include the entire modern musical spectrum or it becomes meaningless.

[Moros]

...Metallica? ...Rock and Roll?

No.

I would understand them being in a heavy metal hall of fame, but they don't belong in a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

As a matter of fact, so don't a lot of people (Elton John, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mack -- Prince?! What the hell is he doing in Rock and Roll?!) So, yeah, I guess I don't have a problem with the RnR Hall of Fame inducting Metallica.

Edit: I should add I'm not saying anyone's taste in music is worse than mine. Just that there's a limit to what Rock and Roll is; it can't include the entire modern musical spectrum or it becomes meaningless.

Dear Reverend Joe though I tend to appreciate the bands from your thread, and tend to agree with quite a bit you, I really can't disagree more with anything than tyou post above. Rock is something wide and very heterogeneous. Rock can be quiet and loud, fast and slow, experimental and commercial, known and unkown, very guitarish and even almost without guitars. It's collection of music tied together by it's origin, the white man making his version of the blues. Sometimes it's called Rock, sometimes Rock and Roll. Misnamed if you ask me as Rock and the old 50's Rock 'n' Roll might be from the same tree, their not on the same branch. Rock if you ask me started back into the years when groups like the Rolling Stones and the Who (long live England home to most of the best musicians ever IMO) stopped playing the blues, but rather made their version of it. Even in these early beginnings you can notice the variety within Rock. I can get no Satisfaction, still very much a blues song, but is also an early commercial sing-a-long stadium rock song, while the Who start out with much harder aggresive songs such as my generation. The Rolling Stones even go over most of the basic variety's with a quiet 'ballads' like Angie, to more harder and darker songs like street fighting man. Experimental rock is early on the scene too with the creation of psychadelic rock. Metal and Hardrock follow up the who quite quickly with bands like black Sabath. Metal starts out not that different to most rock except a bit louder and the typical semi-tone shifts and use of powerchords. The last big section of rock music follows a little later with the birth of punk who trade the depth of metal for a faster tempo. Most genre's in rock come from it's ealry origins with punk as it's Benjamin. They evolved gained subbranches and become even more diverse. And when comparing two song from both ends of the rock spectrums it seems like they might seem impossible to be from the same family but they are.

So if the Rock 'n' Roll hall of fame is only inteded for those who play 50's style pop with the new electric guitar sound, than yes Metallica shouldn't be in there. If it's also meant for the bigger misnamed genre and spirit called rock than Metallica should've long been in there. Now don't begin saying how commercial metallica is or whatever. YEs metallica sells lots of records, and they have changed their music to attrackt a wider audience. But that doesn't mean the music is bad per se. It's not the commercial succes that defines musical quality. An example when R.E.M. didn't want to become too poppy and to commercial they swapped the guitar for a mandelin, made a song without a chorus, which was 5 minutes long too. And what did they get? Their biggest hit as of yet and even one of the biggest hits from the decade. Let's not forget Metallica finds it origin in the resistance against the studio poppy metal and commercialism of music and rock of the 80'ies. A time every genre of rock "needed" it's saviours. From hardrock with nirvana and grunge, from standard rock with new wave, indie, britrock and college rock, metal with Metallica and trashmetal, Punk with blackflag and hardcore, even the more poppy-stadium rock with Bruce Springsteen. In the end all these genre's end up more commercialised and more accepted with record labels contracting bands to imitate Nirvana and the likes, or in England which in 90's had the biggest commercial rock music ever with oasis and blur. Even though the Manchester sound from which their music orginates had completely a different set of goals. However that doesn't take away that it's all rock, or bad music. Not at all. Blur's songs might be commercial succeses but are one of last bigger rock bands who were that experimental, and oasis songs were the most inspiring crowd moving songs since Bruce.

Gah! you got me to start rambling again!

[InsaneApache]

I don't know, kids today.

[Reverend Joe]

Dear Reverend Joe though I tend to appreciate the bands from your thread, and tend to agree with quite a bit you, I really can't disagree more with anything than tyou post above. Rock is something wide and very heterogeneous. Rock can be quiet and loud, fast and slow, experimental and commercial, known and unkown, very guitarish and even almost without guitars. It's collection of music tied together by it's origin, the white man making his version of the blues. Sometimes it's called Rock, sometimes Rock and Roll. Misnamed if you ask me as Rock and the old 50's Rock 'n' Roll might be from the same tree, their not on the same branch. Rock if you ask me started back into the years when groups like the Rolling Stones and the Who (long live England home to most of the best musicians ever IMO) stopped playing the blues, but rather made their version of it. Even in these early beginnings you can notice the variety within Rock. I can get no Satisfaction, still very much a blues song, but is also an early commercial sing-a-long stadium rock song, while the Who start out with much harder aggresive songs such as my generation. The Rolling Stones even go over most of the basic variety's with a quiet 'ballads' like Angie, to more harder and darker songs like street fighting man. Experimental rock is early on the scene too with the creation of psychadelic rock. Metal and Hardrock follow up the who quite quickly with bands like black Sabath. Metal starts out not that different to most rock except a bit louder and the typical semi-tone shifts and use of powerchords. The last big section of rock music follows a little later with the birth of punk who trade the depth of metal for a faster tempo. Most genre's in rock come from it's ealry origins with punk as it's Benjamin. They evolved gained subbranches and become even more diverse. And when comparing two song from both ends of the rock spectrums it seems like they might seem impossible to be from the same family but they are.

So if the Rock 'n' Roll hall of fame is only inteded for those who play 50's style pop with the new electric guitar sound, than yes Metallica shouldn't be in there. If it's also meant for the bigger misnamed genre and spirit called rock than Metallica should've long been in there. Now don't begin saying how commercial metallica is or whatever. YEs metallica sells lots of records, and they have changed their music to attrackt a wider audience. But that doesn't mean the music is bad per se. It's not the commercial succes that defines musical quality. An example when R.E.M. didn't want to become too poppy and to commercial they swapped the guitar for a mandelin, made a song without a chorus, which was 5 minutes long too. And what did they get? Their biggest hit as of yet and even one of the biggest hits from the decade. Let's not forget Metallica finds it origin in the resistance against the studio poppy metal and commercialism of music and rock of the 80'ies. A time every genre of rock "needed" it's saviours. From hardrock with nirvana and grunge, from standard rock with new wave, indie, britrock and college rock, metal with Metallica and trashmetal, Punk with blackflag and hardcore, even the more poppy-stadium rock with Bruce Springsteen. In the end all these genre's end up more commercialised and more accepted with record labels contracting bands to imitate Nirvana and the likes, or in England which in 90's had the biggest commercial rock music ever with oasis and blur. Even though the Manchester sound from which their music orginates had completely a different set of goals. However that doesn't take away that it's all rock, or bad music. Not at all. Blur's songs might be commercial succeses but are one of last bigger rock bands who were that experimental, and oasis songs were the most inspiring crowd moving songs since Bruce.

Gah! you got me to start rambling again!

Damn, Moros...

When I was saying "Rock and Roll," I meant basically the (somewhat subjective) category of music between the transition from 40's boogie blues (some of which could also be included) and the British reaction. Personally, I don't think any post-British Invasion band or any post-Garage Rock band should be included in Rock and Roll, although some bands (Foghat and AC/DC come to mind for me) took some cues from the style or the basic sound.

And like I said, I wasn't knocking anyone's musical preferences or saying the music is bad. I'm just saying we should really put a limit on what Rock and Roll is, and quit confusing it with Rock or Metal.

[Strike For The South]

Damn, Moros...

When I was saying "Rock and Roll," I meant basically the (somewhat subjective) category of music between the transition from 40's boogie blues (some of which could also be included) and the British reaction. Personally, I don't think any post-British Invasion band or any post-Garage Rock band should be included in Rock and Roll, although some bands (Foghat and AC/DC come to mind for me) took some cues from the style or the basic sound.

And like I said, I wasn't knocking anyone's musical preferences or saying the music is bad. I'm just saying we should really put a limit on what Rock and Roll is, and quit confusing it with Rock or Metal.

Agreed. Once rock left the south and got all angry it kind of lost its luster.

[Moros]

Damn, Moros...

I have that sometimes. Sometimes thank god.

And like I said, I wasn't knocking anyone's musical preferences or saying the music is bad. I'm just saying we should really put a limit on what Rock and Roll is, and quit confusing it with Rock or Metal.

Then we're okay.



I guess I don't really have a consistent post-style.

[rasoforos]

you cant deny that albums like Master of puppets and Ride the Lightning are bad... you cant.

That was a long time ago...

...let me be a geek and put this in Lord of the Rings terms:


Pre 1995: Metallica = Smeagol

Post 1995: Metallica = Golum

Once a innocent happy hobbitt-y creature (heavy metal band) they were lured by the one ring (lots of money) and were totally consumed by it. No matter what happens, despite glimpses of their old self, their souls have been forever tainted and their bodies altered (haircuts) and they may never be their old self again.

If I may repeat Lars's word: 'Oh no my precious, they want to take our moneyses'


They are as Rock and Roll as Britney Spears and Pink