DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Then Don McCoy, why was Billie Holiday inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2000?
Well, gee, I dunno - maybe she had a pile of hit singles, or took a load of drugs and died young. I'm beyond giving a shit about questions like that. Reductionist, arse-backwards nonsense like the statement I responded to, on the other hand, is the kind of bullshit I'll put in check on general principle.
Then Don McCoy, why was Billie Holiday inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2000?
Well, gee, I dunno - maybe she had a pile of hit singles, or took a load of drugs and died young. I'm beyond giving a shit about questions like that. Reductionist, arse-backwards nonsense like the statement I responded to, on the other hand, is the kind of bullshit I'll put in check on general principle.
The reason I made that Billie Holiday remark is merely because we have just been going through 10 pages of pointless discussion about wether or not Kool and the Gang should be included in the R&R hall of fame which I quite frankly don't give a damn about myself. I guess I was just trying to breathe a little bit of fresh air into the thread but unfortunately officer McCoy failed to notice that.
My guess is the influence she's had on rock and roll artists. Particularly Janis Joplin.
Other than a wasted life, how exactly was Janis Joplin influenced by Billie Holiday? You seem to keep drawing what are basically non-musical comparisons between artists in order to make connections.
b/w
Kool and the Gang should consider it an honor that they haven't been included in the grotesque experiment in rock-crit stupidity and tokenism that is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
This thread began on dubious grounds and has only sunk lower from there. Not that it hasn't been thoroughly entertaining though. DEFINITELY has to get ghost-bumped in 5 years.
LOL at the idea that "rock n' roll = whatever the Hall of Fame says it is."
I think the reason that Billboard briefly dropped the R&B/Race charts was they were 0r appeared racist. The unintended results was some Black artists that would have charted R&B were not charting at all. So the chart was renamed and reinstated.
The way I heard it was that Billboard briefly dropped their R&B charts (they had LONG since dropped the "race" term by then) because it looked like black and white audiences were buying the same things. This was in late '63.
By the time the chart was reinstated in early '65, the soul revolution had already taken hold, and for every Motown or Stax artist who was crossing over, there was an O.V. Wright or a Walter Jackson whose records never got past the bottom 60 on the pop 100. So, the rhythm & blues listings came back, to accomodate the O.V. Wrights who sold the most in the black communities.
I thought my information came from Joel Whitburn. But I do not find an explanation for dropping the chart in his R&B book.
Maybe it was just me who felt there was a degree of racism in a separate chart for music made by Black people or music sold in the Black community.
One of the results of Soundscan was the revelation that hip hop and country were topping the charts. That fusked up a lot of chart watchers who assumed that rock/pop was the top of the charts. Also oldies lps (Dark Side Of The Moon, Revolver, Bat Out Of Hell) were out selling many top pop/rock acts. They were quickly moved to a separate chart.
Has any one ever done an analysis of which of the big labels are most represented in the HoF?
It was my impression that the HoF was founded in part to boost WEA (Atlantic) catalog sales.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
That wouldn't surprise me in the least. The notion that such arbitrary barometers of cultural significance and artistic worth as the R&RHoF are motivated primarily by noble values is fairly laughable.
I think the reason that Billboard briefly dropped the R&B/Race charts was they were 0r appeared racist. The unintended results was some Black artists that would have charted R&B were not charting at all. So the chart was renamed and reinstated.
The way I heard it was that Billboard briefly dropped their R&B charts (they had LONG since dropped the "race" term by then) because it looked like black and white audiences were buying the same things. This was in late '63.
By the time the chart was reinstated in early '65, the soul revolution had already taken hold, and for every Motown or Stax artist who was crossing over, there was an O.V. Wright or a Walter Jackson whose records never got past the bottom 60 on the pop 100. So, the rhythm & blues listings came back, to accomodate the O.V. Wrights who sold the most in the black communities.
I thought my information came from Joel Whitburn. But I do not find an explanation for dropping the chart in his R&B book.
Maybe it was just me who felt there was a degree of racism in a separate chart for music made by Black people or music sold in the Black community.
The only thing racist about the R&B charts was the name that was used early on in the fifties - "race records." Thank God Jerry Wexler persuaded them to change it.
Shouldn't the fact that another group known for pure unadulterated funk,[/b] was able to make the transition and achieve mainstream success not once but on 12 different occasions throughout the bands history?
by who? us? the few people (by comparison) that bought their first few albums? the few people who i would imagine citing kool & the gang as a crucial influence for the development of the funk sound, vs. others who actually invented new sounds and so-forth? i mean its not like their sounds was COMPLETELY unique enough to be as important as somebody with even more obscure records (at the date of release) like the previously-mentioned velvet underground. good luck finding a whole lot of other records from that time period that sound like THEIR first record, or ones that were as inspirational to future generations of musicians.
look, i love kool & the gang, but if you ask damn near anybody what their musical style was theyre gonna say disco or 80s r&b or something along those lines, because thats what they became popular for. their first, super funky albums werent super popular, or even, dare i say, that important compared to a lot of other stuff from the time period. and thats definitely not the era theyre most well known for anyway.
the deal is, they could get into the rock & roll hall of fame, and while some of your arguments are valid, there are tons of other bands that should probably see their way in, and that are more logical choices.
please remember i very much enjoy and respect the music of kool & the gang.
Point well taken. At this point though, the only other group/artist that should have gotten in a long time ago (even before the time Kool and the Gang should have gotten in) in my opinion is Brian Eno/Roxy Music(At least that I can think of right now).
Comments
Well, gee, I dunno - maybe she had a pile of hit singles, or took a load of drugs and died young. I'm beyond giving a shit about questions like that. Reductionist, arse-backwards nonsense like the statement I responded to, on the other hand, is the kind of bullshit I'll put in check on general principle.
The reason I made that Billie Holiday remark is merely because we have just been going through 10 pages of pointless discussion about wether or not Kool and the Gang should be included in the R&R hall of fame which I quite frankly don't give a damn about myself.
I guess I was just trying to breathe a little bit of fresh air into the thread but unfortunately officer McCoy failed to notice that.
Sorry man.
Other than a wasted life, how exactly was Janis Joplin influenced by Billie Holiday? You seem to keep drawing what are basically non-musical comparisons between artists in order to make connections.
b/w
Kool and the Gang should consider it an honor that they haven't been included in the grotesque experiment in rock-crit stupidity and tokenism that is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
LOL at the idea that "rock n' roll = whatever the Hall of Fame says it is."
they should put him in the hall
Fusk The Rock-N-Roll Hall Of Fame!
They're an Institution. Made up of cats w/ opinions like Soulstrut.
You/We have the right to disagree w/ their selection process.
Why do you seem to hold their "selection" in high regard?
Have you ever questioned a Magazines Top 100 before?
If you were invited to sit on that inductee commitee would u contribute or would you sit there quiet like a church mouse because their the "commitee"?
Anybody w/ financial backing and resources can assemble their own Hall.
Music/Art Critique can ALWAYS be challenged. That the beauty of this game.
No different than listening to sports radio and hearing dudes debate on the historical significance of players.
To not even CHALLENGE the "establishment's" ideas is very un-Rock-N-Roll.
Not according to the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame. Your opinion, sir, has been overruled!
I thought my information came from Joel Whitburn. But I do not find an explanation for dropping the chart in his R&B book.
Maybe it was just me who felt there was a degree of racism in a separate chart for music made by Black people or music sold in the Black community.
One of the results of Soundscan was the revelation that hip hop and country were topping the charts. That fusked up a lot of chart watchers who assumed that rock/pop was the top of the charts. Also oldies lps (Dark Side Of The Moon, Revolver, Bat Out Of Hell) were out selling many top pop/rock acts. They were quickly moved to a separate chart.
It was my impression that the HoF was founded in part to boost WEA (Atlantic) catalog sales.
If that were the case, then Iggy & the Stooges should have made it into the HOF the minute they were eligible.
Their first two albums did come out on Elektra (the "E" in WEA).
The only thing racist about the R&B charts was the name that was used early on in the fifties - "race records." Thank God Jerry Wexler persuaded them to change it.
by who? us? the few people (by comparison) that bought their first few albums? the few people who i would imagine citing kool & the gang as a crucial influence for the development of the funk sound, vs. others who actually invented new sounds and so-forth? i mean its not like their sounds was COMPLETELY unique enough to be as important as somebody with even more obscure records (at the date of release) like the previously-mentioned velvet underground. good luck finding a whole lot of other records from that time period that sound like THEIR first record, or ones that were as inspirational to future generations of musicians.
look, i love kool & the gang, but if you ask damn near anybody what their musical style was theyre gonna say disco or 80s r&b or something along those lines, because thats what they became popular for. their first, super funky albums werent super popular, or even, dare i say, that important compared to a lot of other stuff from the time period. and thats definitely not the era theyre most well known for anyway.
the deal is, they could get into the rock & roll hall of fame, and while some of your arguments are valid, there are tons of other bands that should probably see their way in, and that are more logical choices.
please remember i very much enjoy and respect the music of kool & the gang.