RockBand.com

Forums
+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10 15 16 17 18 19 20
Results 191 to 199 of 199
  1. #191
    Headliner
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Planet Claire
    Posts
    7,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockbandfan23467 View Post
    Nirvana deserve being in more than Iron Maiden.
    I agree with this. Nirvana is a shoe-in for the first year they are eligible.
    Afraid nobody 'round here
    understands my potato
    They think I'm only a spud boy
    looking for a real tomato
    Devo - "Smart Patrol/Mr. DNA"

  2. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockbandfan23467 View Post
    Nirvana deserve being in more than Iron Maiden.
    are you ****ing kidding me?

  3. #193
    Headliner
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Planet Claire
    Posts
    7,081
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryBrudos View Post
    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.
    Afraid nobody 'round here
    understands my potato
    They think I'm only a spud boy
    looking for a real tomato
    Devo - "Smart Patrol/Mr. DNA"

  4. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Runesmith View Post
    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.
    Last edited by JerryBrudos; 04-07-2009 at 02:20 AM.

  5. #195
    Road Warrior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Posts
    4,021
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryBrudos View Post
    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.
    Album wish list: Black Sabbath, Queen II, Static Age, Ride the Lightning, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.

  6. #196
    Washed Up
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Heaven's Fence
    Posts
    10,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Runesmith View Post
    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.
    The Afterman: Acension 10.09.2012
    The Afterman: Decension 02.05.13

  7. #197
    Headliner
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    I'm invincible, and you can't touch me
    Posts
    8,260
    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.
    Last edited by Rockbandfan23467; 10-14-2012 at 10:53 PM.
    Remember zeppelin1969!

  8. #198
    Road Warrior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,298
    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.

  9. #199
    Opening Act
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    189
    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.
    Last edited by RuseBalaxin; 11-06-2012 at 09:55 AM.
    "War is over... if you want it"
    - John Lennon


 

Similar Threads

  1. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame...
    By Bakkster_Man in forum History of Rock
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 02:39 AM
  2. Who do you want to see in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
    By mjlambert1 in forum History of Rock
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 09:24 PM
  3. Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame... Really?
    By Captain Zepp 07 in forum History of Rock
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-25-2008, 06:25 PM
  4. SRV in Rock N Roll Hall of Fame?
    By Ledgo2 in forum History of Rock
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 10:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts