What Group Needs To Be In The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

Rush. A thousand times, but it won't happen.

New album out tomorrow, btw. Their 20th studio album.

Wow, broad brush much?

Is it because Axl pulled his usual prima donna nonsense and snubbed the GNR induction this year?

OK, we have to hang out sometime.

 Hey, someone's gotta have integrity.  I thought Axl's letter hit the nail on the head...but as usual, it's so much easier for the public to read a headline, "Axl Snubs HOF," and chalk it up to "prima donna nonsense" than to read and understand the points he made. 

On point though, just look at some of the names of bands you rattled off (amongst others)...then look at some who are already in...kinda crazy.  

Serious???

The HOF trips me out... it's just a bunch of nonsense. Rush did fine without the "industry" and not being in the HOF is their biggest accomplishment.

And then if you look up the induction list and see who is in and who made it in before others... my God what a joke. Obviously music is subjective and I get that... but just look at the bands thrown in before Zeppelin... nuff said.

Rush and Alice in Chains... wow what else are we going to agree on.

Someone surely came of age in the 80s. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

scoobysdad - 2012-06-11 4:43 PM I'm not completely sure some of these bands aren't already in, but here goes... Duran Duran The Cure Def Leppard Motley Crue Bryan Ferry & Roxy Music Cheap Trick Depeche Mode Devo Mark Knopfler & Dire Straits Donna Summer Electric Light Orchestra Nine Inch Nails and, of course, Social Distortion.

Not a huge HoF person myself, I had to look through them to familiarize myself. Exactly which pre-1995 performer-inductees do you feel are undeserving of HoF status?

I can go with most, but not all, of those.

From the Op's list, only Kiss merits inclusion.

Several... Kinks, The Band, The Animals.... not that they necessarily don't deserve it, but not so sure before others....and since the HOF is sort of new they have to bias towards earlier stuff to get them in.  I get that, but just so much 60s stuff that I don't really care for... of course that was before my time and I have no doubt a few of the inductees had a bigger influence than I am aware of... but some of them are just groups that seem to have some hits, but I'm not sure they had a profound influence on rock and roll.

The Who was inducted first and that rivalry has been around a while. It's an opinion and of course The Who were very influential to some... I think LZ was probably the most influential band ever. They broke new ground and started an entirely new genre... so again, there will be differing opinions, but I just don't agree... I don't think you start from the beginning and go forward... start with the biggest and work your way down until the groups you are considering no longer make the cut. I'm no music historian.. that's probably why they didn't ask my opinion...

I think the recent inductees have been more "suspect" than years past.  It seems random now.  Older inductees had to be truly at the top of their genre, whatever that happened to be... ex: Black Sabbath.

I don't think any of the bands listed really meet that criteria.  While Kiss was certainly in a category of their own for stage presence, their music was rather soft-pop-ish.  I could see Rob Halford getting in there on his own someday, though.

The three bands you named have had as much or more influence as Zeppelin, and I speak as a huge Zep fan. I could name twenty performers of the top of my head that have been as influential (or more so) than the Zeppelin. Maybe they didn't influential your favorite genres, but their influence can be found in others and in popular music in generral.

The way you phrase some things:

had a bigger influence than I am aware of.

I'm no music historian

just so much 60s stuff that I don't really care for

just groups that seem to have some hit

reinforces the opinion I have about most CoJers who start and post in music threads: they like what they know (vehemently at times) but have little depth to their musical taste, and little desire to add any. Nothing wrong with any of that, everyone's entitled to their own musical opinions as well as developing the basis for such. However, I would invite you to sample the back catalog of some of these earlier artists to see what they're all about. Ditto to some of the more recent ones that you're not familiar with.

I'd be happy to recommend albums by those three bands and others if you have such an inclination.

That's cool. I can accept my ignorance of the subject. I have no problem saying you could be right. My Dad had a pretty eclectic taste so I grew up listening to his music. NGD Band, Niel Diamond, Elton, Moody Blues, Charlie Pride... ect. I found RnR in 79... so growing up to that it was still a lot of 60/70 rock on the radio along with new stuff. What always moved me about RnR was it's rebelion, unrest, anti establishment undertones.... while I understood the movement of the 60s... the music itself did not move me. I soooo understand how it moved that generation... but I had mine. When RnR became hair bads in the 80s... to me it lost it's soul.. so I moved to alt/new wave/punk... when grunge came around I was all in again...

So ya, I have what I grew up with just like the 50 the 60 and the 70s generations had and that is what they liked. I also understand history and we only get where we are by those that came before.... but now that I have some time on me.. I can see the stuff of the 60s and 70s that have remained timeless... to me LZ fits that discription... but so does Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Bob Seger, Eagles, AC/DC...

I'm cool with the suggestions... not that I don't belive you.. it's just not my time... my co-workers have Sirius in the control room and I get a regular does of 50s on up... it just isn't what moves me. I think that is where it becomes meaningfull for us... the soundtrack of our lives and the times it conjures up... I just have no refference to draw from for those times. I hope that makes sense.