RRHOF - glaring omissions article [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums


View Full Version : RRHOF - glaring omissions article

01-09-2007, 11:36 AM

At least the article called it for what it is...The Rolling Stone Magazine Hall Of Fame

Not that I'm all bent out of shape by who's in, its just that the list that comprises who isn't in is staggering and unexplainable.

At this point, I don't think I'd even want a fave of mine in there, now that VH is in, the RRHOF has reduced itself to Grammy status.

01-09-2007, 11:52 AM
Loved Sex Pistols turning them down.

This quote: "if the only Hall of Fame requirement is being as good as Van Halen, the floodgates are wide open" pretty much sums up my thoughts on inductees.

01-09-2007, 12:01 PM
When exactly was it NOT the 'Rolling Stone' HOF?

I'm submitting this before even reading the Herald article. I've seen plenty saying very similar things. It gets to a point where it seems like an obvious complaint, or observation, depending on yr point of view.

Grandmaster Flash deserves a place in some HOF that's devoted to acts that put out a couple of great singles & were perhaps pioneers in this or that genre. I saw them live, in front of an audience that was in no way hostile (unlike, say, when they opened for the Clash at Bond's) and they were awful. Their placement is a joke, but only if you take the RRHOF seriously to begin with.

And yes, I like that someone's lamenting the omission of the Stooges, MC5, et al (and I agree that prog omissions make no sense in the scheme of things), but while I love those bands & dislike plenty that's in the RRHOF, it's not something I lose sleep over. Besides, I've read a few things that point to those who make the decisions making them at least partially based on personal or business issues with nominees.