Bare in mind Luscious that Rock and Roll has part of it's roots in early r&b, so for you to ask me if I considered an r&b pop song "rock'n'roll" is a bit of an oxymoron in my opinion (considering that part of rock and roll comes from r&b).
Bare in mind Luscious that Rock and Roll has part of it's roots in early r&b, so for you to ask me if I considered an r&b pop song "rock'n'roll" is a bit of an oxymoron in my opinion (considering that part of rock and roll comes from r&b).
Thank you Leisurebandit, at least somebody here understands.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
It's as much Rock and Roll as EW&F's Let's Groove.
Dude, ur talkin in circles.
EW&F most likely got in for their hit ALBUMS(not singles)before Let's Groove.
EW&F had a stronger presence OVERALL than did K&ATG.
What dont you get?
Plus Maurice White's legacy in the game playin drums for Ramsey Lewis is probably a factor amongst those old muthafuckas. The In Crowd is industry loved.
DEAL.
Becky is gonna own EW&F Greatest Hits before Kool & The Gang's.
Shit some real heads will cut off EW&F at Boogie Wonderland.
Another point worth considering is that for the first ten years of their career at least, Kool was strictly an instrumental combo. They stayed closer to their jazz roots for a lot longer than their peers, and didn't really fusk with vocals until James JT Taylor came along, whereas EW&F had some sort of vocal presence from the off. I doubt you'll find too many strictly instrumental acts (if any at all) in the R&RHoF - possibly the Ventures, Link Wray or Duane Eddy, but beyond that, not much, I'd imagine.
EDIT: To clarify my point, instrumental music gets no love from the kind of people who decide who gets into the R&RHoF or not. Mention instrumental music to them, and they'll think of Robert Farnon, Clebanoff, 101 Strings, Lawrence Welk and them. K&tG's early shit is much closer to jazz anyway, and the later stuff is probably too close to the tail-end of disco to fully escape the stigma that's still attached to that era.
Booker T. & the M.G,'s were an instrumental group who made it the hall in '92 with 14 hit singles to their credit. It's possible to be an instrumental group and make it to the hall of fame.
That's not what I think, that's what it is. The only other art-form that's just as popular (or more popular) is hip-hop and once you do your research, it all traces back to the same lineage.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Booker T. & the M.G,'s were an instrumental group who made it the hall in '92 with 14 hit singles to their credit. It's possible to be an instrumental group and make it to the hall of fame.
To the guy who was telling people to read his posts more closely a little while ago;
I doubt you'll find too many strictly instrumental acts (if any at all) in the R&RHoF - possibly the Ventures, Link Wray or Duane Eddy, but beyond that, not much, I'd imagine.
Booker T. & the MGs were obviously a glaring oversight on my part, but my broader point stands. Don't forget either their ancillary, yet arguably more significant, contribution to the development of r&b, soul and rock & roll as the Stax house rhythm section. It ain't just about hits, otherwise the Velvets wouldn't have got in there in a hundred lifetimes.
That's not what I think, that's what it is. The only other art-form that's just as popular (or more popular) is hip-hop and once you do your research, it all traces back to the same lineage.
If it all traces back to the same lineage why isnt it called the Music Hall of Fame?
Doesnt Rock -N-Roll hold certain parameters as an artform?
Booker T. & the M.G,'s were an instrumental group who made it the hall in '92 with 14 hit singles to their credit. It's possible to be an instrumental group and make it to the hall of fame.
I don't see why it would be impossible...if you know your rock history, instrumentals were a major part of rock & roll up until 1964-65, it wasn't some novelty...and even after all the white bands started featuring more vocals, it was a staple of black music for a lot longer. Almost every major funk band you can name had an instrumental number in the repertoire...
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Yeah, but an act that was strictly instrumental (which K&tG was for the best part of a decade)? Not so common. I hear what you're saying regarding the position of instrumentals in an act's repertoire during the formative years of rock & roll/r&b, but it's unusual for a rock & roll act to have a long career with a sustained period of success performing a repertoire that's solely instrumental - not impossible, just unusual.
Well, you're right it's not all about the hits, it's also about the number of years that have passed since you or your group came on the scene(i think 25 is the minimum you've got to have on you to be considered for eligibility) along with the contribution (or contributions)you've made in the development of contemporary music along with the musical influence you've had on people. Which is why I feel KATG should already be in because on a commercial and artistic merit,they've got it locked on all counts (in my opinion).
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
I wouldn't dispute whether or not they qualify under the basic criteria, just that certain aspects of their music and career might preclude them from being an automatic/obvious choice.
Remember, the Dave Clark 5 got in purely on the strength of their hit singles during the 60's(and to me, they had no stage presence except for picking up their instruments and playing to the audience of young screaming teenage girls), so that alone proves the that amount of hit singles you rack up could play a key role on whether the R&RHOF induction committee chooses to nominate you or not. It may not be the only role but it certainly serves its purpose.
I think you are kinda selling the DC5 short. Those dudes were HUGE in their time. People forget that for a good while they were 2nd only to the Beatles in the whole British Invasion scheme of things before the Animals, Stones et al caught up. In my eyes they are a lot more important in Rock & Roll history than Kool & The Gang (although I like early K&TG way better than any DC5).
Remember, the Dave Clark 5 got in purely on the strength of their hit singles during the 60's(and to me, they had no stage presence except for picking up their instruments and playing to the audience of young screaming teenage girls), so that alone proves the that amount of hit singles you rack up could play a key role on whether the R&RHOF induction committee chooses to nominate you or not. It may not be the only role but it certainly serves its purpose.
I think you are kinda selling the DC5 short. Those dudes were HUGE in their time. People forget that for a good while they were 2nd only to the Beatles in the whole British Invasion scheme of things before the Animals, Stones et al caught up. In my eyes they are a lot more important in Rock & Roll history than Kool & The Gang (although I like early K&TG way better than any DC5).
I couldn't tell whether Litemus was clowning the DC5 or not...myself, while I've always loved their hits/singles, the albums were HORRENDOUS, even if you're a garage/beat fanatic like I am...but then again, it wasn't the album cuts that got them to the HOF anyway, it was all about the hits (for good reason)...I couldn't really disagree with them being in the Hall, although I was surprised that the DC5 got there before the MC5.
Well, it is a debatable topic I will say that. I guess it all just comes down to whether if the induction committee board feels the same way or not. I personally feel they're just as important (if not more)considering their impact on pop music,jazz, funk, hip-hop, and soul music altogether.
I wasn't clowning the Dave Clark 5, I just felt they had no stage presence whenever they would perform live. Their performances came off uninspired to me as opposed to a Sam & Dave performance, a James Brown performance, or even Sly Stone in his prime. However, it definitely doesn't take away from their personal achievements. At the end of the day, (like sports) you've got to look at the stats. 14 consecutive top 40 hits, 50 million records sold, sounds like the work of a Rock and Roll hall of fame music group to me.
I wasn't clowning the Dave Clark 5, I just felt they had no stage presence whenever they would perform live. Their performances came off uninspired to me as opposed to a Sam & Dave performance, a James Brown performance, or even Sly Stone in his prime. However, it definitely doesn't take away from their personal achievements. At the end of the day, (like sports) you've got to look at the stats. 14 consecutive top 40 hits, 50 million records sold, sounds like the work of a Rock and Roll hall of fame music group to me.
I don't think you can really compare them to Sam & Dave, James Brown or Sly Stone, pretty different backgrounds. If you compare them to the Shadows, the Beatles, the Animals, the Stones, Gerry & The Pacemakers, they tend to give a better showing live. It's often easier for that 60s stuff to come off more exciting live if you have a frontman to focus on who isn't tied to an instrument too. I don't think any of those 60s British Invasion guys really had the whole "own the audience while playing an instrument" thing perfected at that stage.
At the end of the day, (like sports) you've got to look at the stats. 14 consecutive top 40 hits, 50 million records sold, sounds like the work of a Rock and Roll hall of fame music group to me.
Comments
Reba Mcintire is R&B?
Another point worth considering is that for the first ten years of their career at least, Kool was strictly an instrumental combo. They stayed closer to their jazz roots for a lot longer than their peers, and didn't really fusk with vocals until James JT Taylor came along, whereas EW&F had some sort of vocal presence from the off. I doubt you'll find too many strictly instrumental acts (if any at all) in the R&RHoF - possibly the Ventures, Link Wray or Duane Eddy, but beyond that, not much, I'd imagine.
EDIT: To clarify my point, instrumental music gets no love from the kind of people who decide who gets into the R&RHoF or not. Mention instrumental music to them, and they'll think of Robert Farnon, Clebanoff, 101 Strings, Lawrence Welk and them. K&tG's early shit is much closer to jazz anyway, and the later stuff is probably too close to the tail-end of disco to fully escape the stigma that's still attached to that era.
To the guy who was telling people to read his posts more closely a little while ago;
Booker T. & the MGs were obviously a glaring oversight on my part, but my broader point stands. Don't forget either their ancillary, yet arguably more significant, contribution to the development of r&b, soul and rock & roll as the Stax house rhythm section. It ain't just about hits, otherwise the Velvets wouldn't have got in there in a hundred lifetimes.
If it all traces back to the same lineage why isnt it called the Music Hall of Fame?
Doesnt Rock -N-Roll hold certain parameters as an artform?
I don't see why it would be impossible...if you know your rock history, instrumentals were a major part of rock & roll up until 1964-65, it wasn't some novelty...and even after all the white bands started featuring more vocals, it was a staple of black music for a lot longer. Almost every major funk band you can name had an instrumental number in the repertoire...
I couldn't tell whether Litemus was clowning the DC5 or not...myself, while I've always loved their hits/singles, the albums were HORRENDOUS, even if you're a garage/beat fanatic like I am...but then again, it wasn't the album cuts that got them to the HOF anyway, it was all about the hits (for good reason)...I couldn't really disagree with them being in the Hall, although I was surprised that the DC5 got there before the MC5.
there's a lot more crossover in music than in sports; things arent as rigidly defined
Who is this "Luscious Fox" woman you keep addressing?
Luscious
Numbers dont tell the whole story.