Sex Pistols in the RRHOF? Why?

[3-LockBox]

Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but why are the Sex Pistols being inducted into the Rock-N-Roll Hall Of Fame? I thought that the criteria for being inducted was 20-25 years of prolific recording...last time I checked, they only made one album.

And what about Miles Davis...sure, he had a very long, prolific career...in jazz; is this the "early influence" inductee or something?

Considering the actual rock acts that aren't in there that should be, why are they taking up space with acts like the Sex Pistols. Sure, they may have had some influence and maybe warrant some sort of honorable mention, but a full induction? Is this about rock-n-roll or is it about pop culture? If its about pop culture, where's Charles Manson's or Son Of Sam's nomination. Oh, does it need to be positive influences? Then back to my original question...Why?

At least Black Sabbath and Lynard Skynard got in, but I wonder if Sabbath gets in if Ozzie hadn't turned into a TV whore. RR HOF is a complete sham

[Dusty Chalk]

...I wonder if Sabbath gets in if Ozzie hadn't turned into a TV whore.

I suspect they got in in spite of that fact.

[3-LockBox]

I suspect they got in in spite of that fact.

Why now? Their first release was in 1970, I think. 35 years later they are the major influence in metal (name your sub-genre), more so than Floyd or LedZep. Now its 'ok' because Ozzie has some TV clout.

Don't get me wrong, they belong there. They were an obvious choice, ten years ago.

But how long a list could we make of our own nominies that haven't made it yet, or never will?

[MindGoneHaywire]

A long list. Why the Pistols? Why not? You really care? It's a museum presenting r'n'r in a spirit that's kind of counter to the spirit of a good deal of the stuff. Therefore, little they do surprises me. And I don't really care. I was pleased to see the Ramones inducted, but I would've lived another day if they hadn't. (they probably would've died anyway, tho)

Sure, there's lots of artists that probably deserve consideration before the Sex Pistols, but prior to Sabbath getting in, there were a lot of acts inducted after they became eligible that I couldn't see deserving induction before then. Gene Pitney?

But people still listen to the Pistols, still buy their records, even if it's a very small fan base. Their impact was really only a very minor wave here, & mostly after they broke up. But they did sell a lot of records in the UK, & elsewhere. For reasons I don't entirely agree with, they're considered by many to be the band that put together a quintessential punk rock album (that's something I REALLY don't agree with), & it always shows up on critic's lists. As for Miles, he championed quite a few rock acts, almost made it into the studio with Hendrix, and had a period where he probably rocked harder than quite a few of the people that are in the HOF, even if we don't necessarily think of it as 'rock' per se. Some are baffled. I don't get the extent of the feelings on this one, 3-Lock. I just don't think it's that relevant. But that's me.

Miles was a fan of the Stooges. I do think Iggy should be in there in front of the Pistols. But he's not, so what can you do. Maybe one day they'll get around to Van Halen (at this point, although I don't like one thing they did after DLR, the most blatant example of a band that should be in there that I can see), KISS, Alice Cooper. Maybe not. I swear, as wretched as a Grammys broadcast is, I'd rather sit through one of those than the HOF induction programs.

< edit > Hey, I'm well aware that there are aspects of, and issues in, the music business that bug the hell out of me. This just isn't one of them. Arguing about a list of the 100 greatest guitar players or something like that is silly, but I can sorta understand it more than having much concern about the R'n'R HOF. That said, hey, if it bothers you, shout it from the rooftops. It's not like their list of inductees couldn't use just a bit of tweaking, for sure...

[Duds]

The Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is a total joke.

Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but why are the Sex Pistols being inducted into the Rock-N-Roll Hall Of Fame? I thought that the criteria for being inducted was 20-25 years of prolific recording...last time I checked, they only made one album.

And what about Miles Davis...sure, he had a very long, prolific career...in jazz; is this the "early influence" inductee or something?

Considering the actual rock acts that aren't in there that should be, why are they taking up space with acts like the Sex Pistols. Sure, they may have had some influence and maybe warrant some sort of honorable mention, but a full induction? Is this about rock-n-roll or is it about pop culture? If its about pop culture, where's Charles Manson's or Son Of Sam's nomination. Oh, does it need to be positive influences? Then back to my original question...Why?

At least Black Sabbath and Lynard Skynard got in, but I wonder if Sabbath gets in if Ozzie hadn't turned into a TV whore. RR HOF is a complete sham

[Duds]

I could be wrong, but didn't the Hall have an issue with putting them in because they felt their music was satanic or some stupid crap like that?

Why now? Their first release was in 1970, I think. 35 years later they are the major influence in metal (name your sub-genre), more so than Floyd or LedZep. Now its 'ok' because Ozzie has some TV clout.

Don't get me wrong, they belong there. They were an obvious choice, ten years ago.

But how long a list could we make of our own nominies that haven't made it yet, or never will?

[Davey]

Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but why are the Sex Pistols being inducted into the Rock-N-Roll Hall Of Fame?

I think it might have something to do with the fact that they only released one album almost 30 years ago but people are still talking about it. Like them or not, they became the lightning rod for a huge storm that was gathering charge at that time in rock and roll history, and yeah, it burned them out almost as soon as it hit, but like others said, it hit pretty hard. And those singles still rock. But really, like J says, who even cares other than the media programmers at VH-1?

We should do our own Rave Recordings Hall of Fame. Although I guess we already did do something kind of like that with our big Essential Albums list and all those March Madness polls when we picked the Talking Heads as our favorite band of all time, although checking back it looks like there were only 16 votes in the final poll and mine wasn't one of them, so I shiould say when "you guys" picked the Talking Heads

http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...5849#post25849

[Troy]

I wasn't aware of the lengthy career thing (If Peyrton Manning had a career ending injury this weekend, will he be a HoF'r? Discuss). I dislike the Pistols. They run counter to pretty much everything I like about music in general. Still, the influence and importance is undenyable whether I like to lounge under that particular bough of the music tree or not. We all have favorites to list that aren't in and should be (Yes? Todd Rundgren? Talking Heads? Pink Floyd, or are they in already?), but who gives a rats a$$? I'm not really even sure who's in and who's not. Feel free to point out my errors.

If you don't think the HoF is important, then who cares? If people base their music collection and general taste on who's in the HoF and who's not, they are just diletantes who's opinions are meaningless. The HoF runs counter to the whole rock and roll ideal anyway. It's almost as corrupt and pointless as the Grammys.

If you still are bugged by the HoF inductees, send them an e-mail saying who ought to be in. See if they care what you think. Yeah, right . . .

[3-LockBox]

I just don't get the extent of the feelings on this one, 3-Lock

Because its a music related topic

And any music talk is good talk...or I'd never come here in the first place.

Just sumpin to do...

besides...have you seen my post count? Its pathetic

I just don't think its that relevant

Don't sweat it; I'm not pissed about it. You ask why do I care? That's my wife's attitude towards this whole music thing in general (including this board). Is it relevant? only to someone who logs onto a music message board.

But no, its not an important topic in the grand scope of life. I was actually saving that post for the 'Save The World' message board

It's all good.

3LB

[3-LockBox]

I wasn't aware of the lengthy career thing (If Peyrton Manning had a career ending injury this weekend, will he be a HoF'r? Discuss). I dislike the Pistols. They run counter to pretty much everything I like about music in general. Still, the influence and importance is undenyable whether I like to lounge under that particular bough of the music tree or not. We all have favorites to list that aren't in and should be (Yes? Todd Rundgren? Talking Heads? Pink Floyd, or are they in already?), but who gives a rats a$$? I'm not really even sure who's in and who's not. Feel free to point out my errors.

If you don't think the HoF is important, then who cares? If people base their music collection and general taste on who's in the HoF and who's not, they are just diletantes who's opinions are meaningless. The HoF runs counter to the whole rock and roll ideal anyway. It's almost as corrupt and pointless as the Grammys.

If you still are bugged by the HoF inductees, send them an e-mail saying who ought to be in. See if they care what you think. Yeah, right . . .

I did some research and no, its not the length of career, but the impact or influence. So I was WAY OFF on that one

Peyton Manning is in already because of his recent recordbreaking season. But if he stopped playing tomorrow, would he still get in on an individual basis? Who knows?

Is Bo Jackson in yet? Now he had impact and was obviously a superior talent. But he only played one seaon.

How about Brian Bosworth? He obviously had a major impact on football (maybe only from a cultural and financial standpoint). He wasn't a lot of people's cup-o-tea, but he did blaze the trail for a lot of other players (Terrell Owens, anyone?)

Yeah, I think it would be cool if the RR HOF reflected my musical tastes, but I know better than that. And I just now remebered that if you don't like something, its way cooler to ignore it, than to respond to it. So yeah, who gives a sh!t.

3LB

[unleasHell]

I'm not a Pistols fan, but they get a deserve a lot of credit on teaching later Punks how to be Punks..

The Ramones looked like a bunch of long-haired hippy rockers who happened to play punk-ish (albiet not hard-core) music.

The Pistols played and lived Punk, give them their due...

[Swish]

I did some research and no, its not the length of career, but the impact or influence. So I was WAY OFF on that one

Peyton Manning is in already because of his recent recordbreaking season. But if he stopped playing tomorrow, would he still get in on an individual basis? Who knows?

Is Bo Jackson in yet? Now he had impact and was obviously a superior talent. But he only played one seaon.

How about Brian Bosworth? He obviously had a major impact on football (maybe only from a cultural and financial standpoint). He wasn't a lot of people's cup-o-tea, but he did blaze the trail for a lot of other players (Terrell Owens, anyone?)

Yeah, I think it would be cool if the RR HOF reflected my musical tastes, but I know better than that. And I just now remebered that if you don't like something, its way cooler to ignore it, than to respond to it. So yeah, who gives a sh!t.

3LB

He was a better pro football player than he is an actor, but wasn't very successful at either. I remember in one game when he met Bo Jackson head-on near the goal line and Bo knocked him on his arse and scored.

By the way, you stated above that Bo played only one season of football, but that's not true. He played for the Raiders in the NFL and baseball for the Royals in the American League in both 1988 and 1989. His athletic career was ended when he injured his hip playing football in 1991, so he must have played at least 3 seasons of football, or close to it. He will never make it in the football hall of fame, regardless of how good he was during that short time in the bigs.

As for Bosworth, he was a very good college linebacker, but his impact on the NFL wasn't nearly as big. His career was probably shorter than Bo Jackson's, lasting just three years with the Seahawks before retiring due to shoulder trouble. His flamboyant personality was refreshing, although I wasn't a fan because he played for Oklahomo...excuse me, Oklahoma, one college time I could not stand. He, like Bo, will never make it to Canton either. He career was too short and he really wasn't that good.

As for your R&R HOF comments, you certainly make some good points, but like a few of the others, I pretty much ignore it, just like the Grammy's. It's nice to remember those that blazed the trail, but when it becomes a popularity contest, count me out. It's like saying MacDonald's makes the best hamburgers because they sell more than anyone else.

Swish

[Troy]

Peyton Manning is in already because of his recent recordbreaking season. But if he stopped playing tomorrow, would he still get in on an individual basis? Who knows?

Is Bo Jackson in yet? Now he had impact and was obviously a superior talent. But he only played one seaon.

How about Brian Bosworth? He obviously had a major impact on football (maybe only from a cultural and financial standpoint). He wasn't a lot of people's cup-o-tea, but he did blaze the trail for a lot of other players (Terrell Owens, anyone?)

3LB

Manning- In now, regardless of what else he does in his career, tho I have friends that will argue that til the cows come home.

Bo Jackson- No. One season is not a career. Just not enough of a career.

Bosworth, what, are you kidding? The guy was a bust with a stupid haircut. Not even REMOTELY a HoF'r

T.O. Not yet. Win a superbowl and put a 3-5 year stretch together where he puts up the numbers he's physically capable of putting up while acting like Barry Sanders or Marvin Harrison.

Other controversial players:
Deion Sanders?
Ray Lewis?
Kurt Warner?

[agtpunx40]

I'm not really a Sex Pistols fan or anything, and I couldn't care less about the RRHOF, but calling the punk movement minor, or saying that it fissled out quickly is just not true. In England, lots of real punk was near the top of the indy charts for years after the Sex Pistols were gone. In america today, you could go to any city, do a quick online search and find a bunch of punk shows to go to tonight. When I used to live in CT, there were punk shows all over the state all the time, in firehouses, KofC halls, and clubs. Now, I'm sure there are more jazz, jam band, whatever shows, but that's not bad considering that real punk gets no radio time.

It gave rise to hardcore, ska, new wave, and heavily influenced some metal, grunge, indy, etc. Now, this aren't all necessarily positive (emo, new wave, ska....) but it is an important influence and didn't disappear with the Sex Pistols. Most people I know who play music at all have played in at least a few punk bands. Were the Sex Pistols responsible for all this? Of course not. But I would disagree with those who seemed to say that punk was minor, or only lasted a few years.

[rufus]

i'll venture that the Sex Pistols embody the spirit of rock and roll far more than some other acts in the Hall of Fame *cough*Eagles*cough cough*. At a time when rock was increasingly boring, lazy, bloated, and self-absorbed, they came along and placed a swift kick in the ass to the complacent mainstream. and were largely responsible for the birth of the punk movement. it's not every artist you can say were responsible for an entirely new musical genre.

while it may not be to everyone's test, Bollocks is a great rock record. and you gotta admit, their influence on the music world that came after was pretty massive. would there have been a Clash without the Pistols? a Jam? Nirvana? possibly, but i'm pretty certain that Paul Weller and members of the Clash have said that it was seeing the Pistols that inspired them to form their own bands.

[BinFrog]

I'm not a Pistols fan, but they get a deserve a lot of credit on teaching later Punks how to be Punks..

The Ramones looked like a bunch of long-haired hippy rockers who happened to play punk-ish (albiet not hard-core) music.

The Pistols played and lived Punk, give them their due...

The Sex Pistols were a marketing ploy that 'punks' ate up. The Ramones and The Clash were real punk bands. The Pistols were made up.

[BarryL]

The Sex Pistols were a marketing ploy that 'punks' ate up. The Ramones and The Clash were real punk bands. The Pistols were made up.

I seem to recall that most of Roxy Music played on those Sex Pistol recordings.

Anyone know anything about this?

Another rock'n'roll swindle?

[MindGoneHaywire]

>I'm not a Pistols fan, but they get a deserve a lot of credit on teaching later Punks how to be Punks..
>The Pistols played and lived Punk, give them their due...

According to who? If that band defined punk for you, that's great. But that's awfully dismissive of anyone for whom the Pistols are not the end-all & be-all, absolute definition of what punk was. "Played and lived Punk?" What does that mean?


>i'll venture that the Sex Pistols embody the spirit of rock and roll far more than some other acts in the Hall of Fame *cough*Eagles*cough cough*.

I'll second that.

>were largely responsible for the birth of the punk movement. it's not every artist you can say were responsible for an entirely new musical genre.

Disagree.

>would there have been a Clash without the Pistols? a Jam?

There was already a Clash and a Jam. And in spite of All Music listing the Pistols as an 'influence' on the Jam, "Holidays In The Sun's" riff was actually lifted by Sid Vicious from the Jam's "In The City."

>i'm pretty certain that Paul Weller and members of the Clash have said that it was seeing the Pistols that inspired them to form their own bands.

In Manchester and other places that's probably true, but in London most of the punk rock bands gave that credit to the Ramones after seeing them the weekend of July 4, 1976. That was the impetus for Joe Strummer leaving the pub-rock band he was in, the 101ers. Some of those bands were around, but were galvanized by what the Ramones did, including the Sex Pistols. Johnny Rotten has said they didn't influence him, which is probably true, in spite of the photos of him talking to the Ramones at those gigs. But he didn't play an instrument. Listen to the difference between the early Pistols demos of songs like 'Submission' and 'Anarchy In The UK' & compare them to what the band sounded like not long afterward, like on 'God Save The Queen,' for instance. Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers had an impact also, but their sound wasn't as aggressive as the Ramones. To deny they had an influence on the Pistols would be ludicrous. Outside of a few songs, I don't really hear a major influence by either of those bands on the Clash or the Jam, sound-wise (the Jam mostly weren't that aggressive, & the Clash made great use of Mick Jones' ability on lead guitar). But I do think there's a huge influence in terms of musical approach, attitude, & mindset.



>The Sex Pistols were a marketing ploy that 'punks' ate up. The Ramones and The Clash were real punk bands. The Pistols were made up.

I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.



>I seem to recall that most of Roxy Music played on those Sex Pistol recordings.

No, that would be some of the recordings John Cale did around 1974-75. Is it possible someone in Roxy Music did something on a song or two? I suppose. But I've never read anything anywhere that even suggested this. It's been said for years that Steve Jones did the bass tracks, and Chris Thomas did something here or there, but if you look at footage of the band live, you can see that there's nothing on that record that Steve Jones & Paul Cook weren't capable of playing. Or Glen Matlock, for that matter.

[3-LockBox]

Bosworth, what, are you kidding? The guy was a bust with a stupid haircut. Not even REMOTELY a HoF'r

I was being sarcastic. Being a Seahawk fan, I wouldn't want to see The Boz get so much as an all-day sucker. But I stand by my 'impact' example, since The Boz did blaze the trail for other jerks of his ilk. But remember, he was a very big bust, with a stupid punk rock haircut.

[3-LockBox]

He was a better pro football player than he is an actor, but wasn't very successful at either. I remember in one game when he met Bo Jackson head-on near the goal line and Bo knocked him on his arse and scored.

I saw that one I'm a Seahawks fans and I hated The Boz. He had impact though...like I said, culturaly and finacially, but yer right, he sucked. He managed to fool (or pay-off) team doctors into clearing him to play and then he soaked the Seahawks for not only his salary, but the draft picks. He started being injury prone right out of the gate. This was only the first in a long line of disasterous ... I digress.
My BOZ comment was just illustrating how someone who was really bad at what they do, over-hyped and perhaps even a fake could still be lumped into the same category with others in a ceremony intended to recognize greatness, just because he was outrageous and appealed to so few.

By the way, you stated above that Bo played only one season of football, but that's not true. He played for the Raiders in the NFL and baseball for the Royals in the American League in both 1988 and 1989. His athletic career was ended when he injured his hip playing football in 1991, so he must have played at least 3 seasons of football, or close to it. He will never make it in the football hall of fame, regardless of how good he was during that short time in the bigs.

Its too bad about JACKSON, he woulda broke many records. He makes a good case for The Sex Pistols in a way, considering we'll never know how either Bo or the Sex Pistols woulda progressed in their careers. At least Bo didn't choke on his own vomit.

As for your R&R HOF comments, you certainly make some good points, but like a few of the others, I pretty much ignore it, just like the Grammy's. It's nice to remember those that blazed the trail, but when it becomes a popularity contest, count me out. It's like saying MacDonald's makes the best hamburgers because they sell more than anyone else.

You're right, It is a popularity contest. And its still fashionable to align oneself with punk rock, rather than, oh... say... progressive rock.

[MindGoneHaywire]

>It is a popularity contest. And its still fashionable to align oneself with punk rock, rather than, oh... say... progressive rock.

So...who sold more records?

[3-LockBox]

>It is a popularity contest. And its still fashionable to align oneself with punk rock, rather than, oh... say... progressive rock.

So...who sold more records?

Eagles

[MindGoneHaywire]

Yeah, the Bosworths sure did a job on them, didn't they now?

[3-LockBox]

Yeah, the Bosworths sure did a job on them, didn't they now?

He sure did...well it started there, but the real credit I guess goes to their previous owner Ken Bearing, who took a team ready for the superbowl and turned them into a joke. Some of us think he did it on purpose, for the sake of driving away fans, so he could sneak the team away to L.A. ala Jim Irsay and the Colts (Baltimore to Indy). But, its easy to pin the downward spiral on Boz.

[3-LockBox]

Hey, wait a minute...you a Giants fan?