|
Post by SAT-I need more room!! on Apr 18, 2005 11:23:36 GMT -5
This is going to be an ongoing series. Please check each day! Who do you think of these is MOST deserving at this point in time.
And PLEASE pick one. Don't say "so-n-so AND so-n-so". Or, "None-I'd rather see, so-n-so." I need just one answer from everyone. You will most likely eventually see your choice on this feature!
THANKS!
My pick-Connie Francis
|
|
|
Post by djdave on Apr 18, 2005 11:39:52 GMT -5
Went with Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Laura--I wuv u all :) on Apr 18, 2005 12:33:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pete70s on Apr 18, 2005 14:34:25 GMT -5
Personally, I don't see why I'm even bothering to vote in this, since I have TOTALLY boycotted the HOF. We always talk about how acts like Chicago and the Moody Blues never get inducted, and the answer is simple: Rolling Stone magazine runs the Hall, Rolling Stone magazine has ALWAYS hated those bands, and because of that, the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame has absolutely NO merit as far as I'm concerned. It's null, void, means about as much to me as VH1..
But, since I am voting, I go with the artist most likely to go in: Graham Parsons.
|
|
|
Post by SAT-I need more room!! on Apr 18, 2005 14:39:41 GMT -5
Personally, I don't see why I'm even bothering to vote in this, since I have TOTALLY boycotted the HOF. We always talk about how acts like Chicago and the Moody Blues never get inducted, and the answer is simple: Rolling Stone magazine runs the Hall, Rolling Stone magazine has ALWAYS hated those bands, and because of that, the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame has absolutely NO merit as far as I'm concerned. It's null, void, means about as much to me as VH1.. But, since I am voting, I go with the artist most likely to go in: Graham Parsons. All good points, and I agree! But that's exactly why I am doing these posts, because it's who we would include if WE ran the Hall! Don't even think of the existing Hall, you know? I appreciate you voting and hope you continue too!
|
|
|
Post by Pete70s on Apr 18, 2005 14:48:27 GMT -5
All good points, and I agree! But that's exactly why I am doing these posts, because it's who we would include if WE ran the Hall! Don't even think of the existing Hall, you know? I appreciate you voting and hope you continue too! Well, then the concept makes more sense.. WE love these acts, WE know they're deserving. But I have a feeling we'll see snow in August before we see Yes in the real Hall...
|
|
|
Post by H2IZCOOL on Apr 18, 2005 15:00:12 GMT -5
I agree with you, Adam. I have been saying that Connie belongs in the HOF for quite a while. She is THE top woman recording artist of the first 5 years of the rock era. No '50s woman has been admitted to the Hall. Connie should without a doubt be the first.
|
|
|
Post by SAT-I need more room!! on Apr 18, 2005 15:01:36 GMT -5
I agree with you, Adam. I have been saying that Connie belongs in the HOF for quite a while. She is THE top woman recording artist of the first 5 years of the rock era. No '50s woman has been admitted to the Hall. Connie should without a doubt be the first. Changing my response here!! Brenda Lee started in the 50's, as did Lavern Baker. But I agree, Connie shoulda been first!!
|
|
|
Post by H2IZCOOL on Apr 18, 2005 15:28:18 GMT -5
Changing my response here!! Brenda Lee started in the 50's, as did Lavern Baker. But I agree, Connie shoulda been first!! I've always considered Brenda more early '60s than late '50s. (In fact I'm not sure if she charted in the '50s at all. - don't have my Whitburn with me). As for Lavern. - maybe, but in an "influence" category rather than on her own music.
|
|
|
Post by SAT-I need more room!! on Apr 18, 2005 15:40:06 GMT -5
I've always considered Brenda more early '60s than late '50s. (In fact I'm not sure if she charted in the '50s at all. - don't have my Whitburn with me). As for Lavern. - maybe, but in an "influence" category rather than on her own music. Actually, Sweet Nothins' did, in 59. That was why I put "changing my response" up there. I initially said, "Didn't Brenda start in the 50's?" but I remembered I had a Rock Book of Lists here at work, and found her in there at 59. And Lavern is actually in as a performer, not an early influence. Which I didn't understand and said so on my Discussion.
|
|
|
Post by lora on Apr 18, 2005 17:39:32 GMT -5
I will agree with Yes as the group who MOST deserves a spot out of those listed.
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Apr 18, 2005 18:56:55 GMT -5
I'll pick Alice.
|
|
|
Post by Triple J on Apr 18, 2005 19:21:05 GMT -5
From this group, Yes is probably most deserving. Why aren't they in already?
|
|
|
Post by KittyKat - RIP Luciano on Apr 18, 2005 19:25:12 GMT -5
I went with Graham Parsons, who I totally thought was already in for some reason. What do I know though?! ;D Seriously, I think his influence on the Byrds, The Rolling Stones, and The Eagles is pretty important.
|
|
|
Post by 55dodger on Apr 18, 2005 19:37:07 GMT -5
My choice was Connie Francis. By any measurement of musical greatness (chart history, influence, etc) Connie certainly measures up. A long string of hits, several 10 tops, 3 #1s, that in itself is hard to argue against.
|
|