HE'S THE ONE WHO LIKES ALL OUR PRETTY SONGS: The results of our Doodle poll on the 2014 nominees to the Non-Country Popular Music of the 1950s and Beyond Hall of Fame are not tremendously surprising -- almost unanimous support for Nirvana (52/54 votes, 96.2%); strong but not filibuster-defeating support for N.W.A. (32), Peter Gabriel (31), Hall and Oates (29), and Linda Ronstadt (25); decent support for The Replacements (17, too low!) and Yes (15) and not much for anyone else, though no one went home empty-handed.
In the coming weeks, the editors of this blog will work up some Keltner analyses on the nominees we haven't yet handled. I don't think much of the Peter Gabriel case, so maybe that's the one I ought to try to examine objectively, while I'd be total fanboy on Hall and Oates regardless my qualms over the video for "Out of Touch." Meanwhile, go ahead and defend your ballot.
I can't wait for an analysis that isn't squarely "Well yeah, usher him in right now" on Peter Gabriel.
ReplyDeleteI'd be particularly interested to hear from the two folks who were "no" on Nirvana. Yes, there's the limited number of albums, but the influence and the hugeness of Nevermind are big big factors in their favor.
ReplyDeleteSolsbury Hill is one of those songs that you either love or hate, right? 'Cause that song both sucks and blows.
ReplyDeleteMust be. I love it.
ReplyDeleteI do know a few people who detest it precisely because of the 7/4 time. Messes around with their sense of order or something. Tthey get twitchy when they hear it because "there's a beat missing."
As of 2011, it's the most played video on MTV ever, and biggest Moonman winner of all time (9). Also, groundbreaking/debut work for Nick Park/Aardman Animation, which wound up being a big influence on animation generally.
ReplyDeleteSome of the Moonmen it won are no longer awarded ("Best Overall Performance," "Most Experimental", "Best Concept Video") so that's a meaningless distinction. And I don't see what impact on animation has to do with his rock cred.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. Can't recall all that might have come before it in the MTV timeline, but is there not a case to be made for it's setting a new standard for the conceptual video? I mean, sure, Thriller pre-dated it, but Thriller vs. everything else is really apples and oranges, no?
ReplyDeleteWell, the point Eric J. made was about afterlife, so the influence on animation does count as far as that goes (but reinforces my point about aesthetic choices by other artists).
ReplyDeleteDefine "conceptual video" -- because "You Might Think," "Money for Nothing," "Take On Me," and Godley & Creme's "Cry" all predated "Sledgehammer".
ReplyDeleteCan we just put Godley & Creme in for music video direction? This is an impressive list.
ReplyDeleteAnd those were all groundbreaking in their way too. So was "Rockit." So was "Elephant Parts." I guess I look at this particular aspect of the case for Gabriel not based on who was first, but rather who was more memorable and has stood the test of time. There's an argument that the "Take On Me" video remains in the zeitgeist (though I think that's more the tail of the recent commercial wagging the dog), but how many people, besides a fairly narrow age cohort, remember the "You Might Think" video today? Does "Money for Nothing" hold up as a video, and are we still talking about the animators?
ReplyDeleteIts time for Daryl Hall & John Oates to be in The Hall of Fame, get it done! :)~
ReplyDeleteNumber of bands that deserve to go first, such as the Replacements. Mostly, I never found them to be all that interesting. So I defer to musician friends of mine who love Nirvana and the grunge scene and are adamant that Nirvana was far from the best band in that genre.
ReplyDelete"Not the best band in their genre" is a fair position to take, though it is of course about as subjective as can be. The "deserve to go first" argument doesn't resonate with me. I get the idea that if you have a limited number of votes to cast and candidate ballot eligibility is limited in some way, you may want to prioritize candidates who haven't yet made it to the exclusion of those who may have many more opportunities. But absent such restrictions (as in the RRHOF case), why should order of induction matter? And even if it did, how does a voter square that sentiment with the possibility/likelihood/certainty that the preferred option(s) may never make it in?
ReplyDelete