Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockbandfan23467

Nirvana deserve being in more than Iron Maiden.

---

I agree with this. Nirvana is a shoe-in for the first year they are eligible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockbandfan23467

Nirvana deserve being in more than Iron Maiden.

---

are you ****ing kidding me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JerryBrudos

are you ****ing kidding me?

---

In an ideal world they would both be in the Hall of Fame, but I do think Nirvana is slightly more deserving, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Runesmith

In an ideal world they would both be in the Hall of Fame, but I do think Nirvana is slightly more deserving, yes.

---

Obviously I want Maiden in more but Nirvana is still deserving. Neither band invented their respective genres but they both revolutionized them and are the biggest players of them. In terms of mainstream popularity at the moment Nirvana probably wins but Iron Maiden had as much of an impact if not more (due to metal being an older and bigger genre than grunge and its predecessors). Saying Nirvana deserves to be in more just doesn't seem quite right

Not to mention Iron Maiden has been around creating consistently good music for a much much longer amount of time. Nirvana only had 3 albums where as Maiden has 14 and a new one in the works with very few weak points. Sure Nirvana may have created more good stuff if Kurt didn't kill himself but a hall of fame isn't about what ifs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JerryBrudos

Obviously I want Maiden in more but Nirvana is still deserving. Neither band invented their respective genres but they both revolutionized them and are the biggest players of them. In terms of mainstream popularity at the moment Nirvana probably wins but Iron Maiden had as much of an impact if not more (due to metal being an older and bigger genre than grunge and its predecessors). Saying Nirvana deserves to be in more just doesn't seem quite right

Not to mention Iron Maiden has been around creating consistently good music for a much much longer amount of time. Nirvana only had 3 albums where as Maiden has 14 and a new one in the works with very few weak points. Sure Nirvana may have created more good stuff if Kurt didn't kill himself but a hall of fame isn't about what ifs.

---

This.

And Maiden has inspired an immense amount of Metal acts. To be quite honest everyone in the music industry does not take Metal seriously. Even though the genre is filled with some of the most talented musicians of all time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Runesmith

In an ideal world they would both be in the Hall of Fame, but I do think Nirvana is slightly more deserving, yes.

---

i will agree with this....and I love iron maiden.

Here's the artists on the list who have been inducted since the creation of the thread in 2008:

Metallica
Genesis
Alice Cooper
Guns N Roses
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Small Faces/The Faces

The 2013 Nominees include Rush, Heart and Deep Purple, but I doubt they'll be in.

At least one of them will be. In the past few years, the HOF has been adding in at least one token hard rock act, so this could be any of these band's lucky day.

Has anyone ever researched the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or their inductee process? Supposed "leaders" in the music industry established this thing in 1983 to commemorate performers who have "demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence." Now I'm not disagreeing with the bands already on the list I'm sure each and every one deserves to be there to some extent...

But, and this where I want to scream... it's a total farce!

I guess Progressive Rock has no real place in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
kinda makes you wonder how Pink Floyd managed to get in. Not that I'm complaining about that, they deserved it long ago. And so do a dozen other bands that aren't even being considered for the 2013 nominations.
Just try and go through the listings yourself and try to keep your blood from boiling... it's impossible! So here's a brief shout out for you.

Ever heard of The Moody Blues? They fused hard rock elements with classical orchestration and poetry, held up an impressive body of work for over two decades and were very influential during the 1970's. Oh but Guns N' Roses exhibited a higher degree of hard rock knowledge, including drug usage, alcoholism and even caused their fans to riot. Yeah, beat that Moody Blues!

Or how about, The Alan Parsons Project? Surely you remember Alan Parsons. You know, that guy who only engineered The Beatles Abbey Road album and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, both the top-selling albums of their time, before setting off to form his own "project" in 1973. I guess a 14-album discography isn't that impressive enough, or the fact that Alan's been making music for over 30 years doesn't really qualify. According to the HOF you can only get inducted 25 years after your work has been in the public domain.

Hmmm... well, that's strange because I see a lot of modern bands like AC/DC and Madonna top the list. OOHHH... this is why, thanks Wikipedia!

According to Fox News, petitions with tens of thousands of signatures were also being ignored, and some groups that were signed with certain labels or companies or were affiliated with various committee members have even been put up for nomination with no discussion at all.[20] The committee has also been accused of largely ignoring certain genres.[22] According to author Brett Milano, "entire genres get passed over, particularly progressive rock, '60s Top 40, New Orleans funk and a whole lot of black music."[23]

Well then, I rest my case.