Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Paul Stanley says KISS doesn't need to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because their fans already know they're the "best band in the universe"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Paul Stanley, rocks, Jann Wenner, Laura Nyro, Randy Newman, selection process, snubs, Mike McCready  
•       •       •

1192 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 May 2013 at 1:48 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-18 10:09:12 AM  
Lousy novelty band for simpletons and mouth-breathers.
 
2013-05-18 10:23:00 AM  
I wanna rock and roll all day, and party every night.

Repeat 50 times, call it a song and 50,000 mouth breathers howl, sing along and light their Bics.
 
2013-05-18 10:39:10 AM  
I thought it was because they were a disco band.
 
2013-05-18 10:52:21 AM  
I like to rock and roll part of every day. I usually have errands. I can rock and roll from like one to three.
 
2013-05-18 10:57:57 AM  
They are a weak-ass band and they should feel bad.
 
2013-05-18 11:29:12 AM  
they're shoo-ins for the merchandising hall of fame. Which should make them feel better, since that's pretty much all they seem to care about.
 
2013-05-18 11:59:31 AM  
Oh, look, a music hipster thread where everyone can masturbate about how Neil Peart's wanky, pointless drum solos are the best thing evar and find out which bands they should no longer be listening to because a second person has heard of that band.

Everyone point and laugh.

/Kiss should be in the rock and roll hall of fame. If they let Rush in, anyone can make it in.
 
2013-05-18 12:26:24 PM  
No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.
 
2013-05-18 12:31:22 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.


To  be fair, Kiss isn't even as good as The Monkees.

/have you heard Mike Nesmith's stuff?
 
2013-05-18 12:48:19 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Oh, look, a music hipster thread where everyone can masturbate about how Neil Peart's wanky, pointless drum solos are the best thing evar and find out which bands they should no longer be listening to because a second person has heard of that band.

Everyone point and laugh.

/Kiss should be in the rock and roll hall of fame. If they let Rush in, anyone can make it in.


Of all the ridiculous members of the RRHOF (Madonna, for example) and you chose Rush to make your point?

I shudder to think what you must listen to.
 
2013-05-18 12:48:29 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Oh, look, a music hipster thread where everyone can masturbate about how Neil Peart's wanky, pointless drum solos are the best thing evar and find out which bands they should no longer be listening to because a second person has heard of that band.

Everyone point and laugh.

/Kiss should be in the rock and roll hall of fame. If they let Rush in, anyone can make it in.


Letting Rush in is totally a pity fark. Triumph will be asking for their pity fark in a couple of years as well.
 
2013-05-18 12:58:27 PM  
Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.
 
2013-05-18 01:01:49 PM  
Stanley, who has been making the media rounds to publicize the opening of a new branch of his Rock & Brews restaurant chain, questioned the legitimacy of the hall itself.

"Look, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is marketing," he said, without a shred of shame or even remote understanding the irony of such a statement .


FTF the article.
 
2013-05-18 01:08:26 PM  

Mugato: Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.


Not that I give a flying turd about the R&RHOF, but I'd suggest to you that where it counts, Public Enemy is 10x the rock act Kiss ever was: attitude.

Public Enemy is about rebellion and controversy as much as it is about the music.

Kiss as a band is little more than a kid-friendly delivery system for Kiss themed merchandise. And they've managed to get extremely rich as a result. So its a little late to start whining about the trajectory of their career.
 
2013-05-18 01:17:38 PM  
Meh, I only know like 4 KISS songs... but who cares, they're fun.  Saw them live once, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a fairly cool experience.
 
2013-05-18 01:17:50 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

To  be fair, Kiss isn't even as good as The Monkees.

/have you heard Mike Nesmith's stuff?


Yep
 
2013-05-18 01:34:15 PM  
Considering KISS' manufactured history, tag should be: Obvious
 
2013-05-18 01:51:25 PM  
As a Pink Floyd fan, I must vociferously refute Mr. Stanley's assertion that KISS is the best band in the universe.
 
2013-05-18 01:58:25 PM  

downstairs: Meh, I only know like 4 KISS songs... but who cares, they're fun.  Saw them live once, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a fairly cool experience.


Kiss was one of my first concert experiences when they were having a fair well tour or similar. Was great showmanship. Guitars on fire, blood, lasting notes, interacting with the crowd, etc., marked where concerts should be on those large venues.
 
2013-05-18 02:00:42 PM  
KISS is a fun band who makes enjoyable music that kicks ass. But they're not making music that million other artists couldn't have. Their image ans marketing are groundbreaking, but that's hardly HoF-worthy. And since this is a RRHoF worthiness thread, my list is Deep Purple, Steppenwolf, Judas Priest, Ozzy as a solo artist, BOC, and it's seriously time to start getting some grunge in there (yes, X'ers, it's been 25 years.), I'd say Nirvana is a safe bet, and Pearl Jam, maybe Soundgarden and STP.
 
2013-05-18 02:06:39 PM  
Saw them in concert once to see what all the fuss was about. Not a fan, but honestly, they belong on the HOF.
 
2013-05-18 02:06:48 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: I'd say Nirvana is a safe bet, and Pearl Jam, maybe Soundgarden and STP.


Alice in Chains is eligible and deserving (new album!), Soundgarden needs to be in, Nirvana is obvious, Pearl Jam isn't eligible, and Stone Temple Pilots are eligible but not seeing an influence the way the other three have. Judas Priest, Ozzy, and Deep Purple do need to be in, too; not a fan of Ozzy, but whatever.
 
2013-05-18 02:11:36 PM  

Vangor: downstairs: Meh, I only know like 4 KISS songs... but who cares, they're fun.  Saw them live once, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a fairly cool experience.

Kiss was one of my first concert experiences when they were having a fair well tour or similar. Was great showmanship. Guitars on fire, blood, lasting notes, interacting with the crowd, etc., marked where concerts should be on those large venues.


Not sure how old you are, or what year you're referring to, but mine was just a few years ago.  Granted, I had a VIP pass to a festival down here, and got to be in the 3rd-ish row for KISS.  It proved to me that not all rock and roll has to be serious and meaningful.  Even at their old age, they bring 100x more energy to their shows than most bands do... and they never phone it in.  Its fun, and they make it fun for the crowd 100% of the time.

I've seen Bob Dylan live, completely phoning it in.  Is KISS better than Bob Dylan in total?  Hell, no.  But if you're looking to slam back a few beers and have a good time- you're guarunteed to get that with KISS.
 
2013-05-18 02:13:12 PM  

Mugato: Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.


Beastie Boys are more rock than KISS.  Public Enemy is more rock than KISS.  Hell, Grandmaster Flash is more rock than KISS.  KISS is to rock music what Poison, Warrant, Winger, and Ratt were to metal.
 
2013-05-18 02:15:22 PM  
This is the best introduction of "The best band in the farking universe".  Her words not mine
 
2013-05-18 02:15:37 PM  
Refreshingly honest rock and roll band
 
2013-05-18 02:16:52 PM  
Somewhere someone thinkgs ICP is the best band in the universe.  Just because someone believes it doesn't make it true.
 
2013-05-18 02:17:00 PM  
Any true rock and roll band, upon being nominated, would tell the HOF to go fark themselves.
 
2013-05-18 02:17:33 PM  

Vangor: Alice in Chains is eligible and deserving (new album!), Soundgarden needs to be in, Nirvana is obvious, Pearl Jam isn't eligible, and Stone Temple Pilots are eligible but not seeing an influence the way the other three have. Judas Priest, Ozzy, and Deep Purple do need to be in, too; not a fan of Ozzy, but whatever.


AIC isn't yet.  First album was 1990, the rule is 25 years from their frist release.  So that would be 2015.  As it stands in 2013, your first album needed to be released in 1988 or earlier.  Also Nirvana's first album was 1989... so they'll be the first grunge act to go in.

I don't think STP is diserving, personally... but they also won't be eligible for quite awhile.  First album was 1992.
 
2013-05-18 02:20:48 PM  

LDM90: Any true rock and roll band, upon being nominated, would tell the HOF to go fark themselves.


It's been done...

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/09/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-is-p is s.html
 
2013-05-18 02:22:07 PM  

satanorsanta: This is the best introduction of "The best band in the farking universe".  Her words not mine


That was awesome!
 
2013-05-18 02:35:18 PM  
RRHOF is a joke. Justin Bieber will be inducted before Chicago, Journey, Styx or Kiss get in. Public Enemy? Really? Who's next? Eminem? They're a joke.
 
2013-05-18 02:47:02 PM  
IMO, NOT being inducted into the Suck & Sell Hall of Fame is a sign of TRUE greatness.
 
2013-05-18 02:47:58 PM  
Here's some fun KISS trivia: Dick Cheney believes the greatest song ever written is Beth.
 
2013-05-18 03:02:31 PM  

grokca: I thought it was because they were a disco band.


I did not know that.
 
2013-05-18 03:03:15 PM  
Ohwhaityoureserious.jpg
 
2013-05-18 03:08:29 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.


I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in
 
2013-05-18 03:23:54 PM  

SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in


I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.
 
2013-05-18 03:34:07 PM  

downstairs: AIC isn't yet.  First album was 1990, the rule is 25 years from their frist release.  So that would be 2015.  As it stands in 2013, your first album needed to be released in 1988 or earlier.  Also Nirvana's first album was 1989... so they'll be the first grunge act to go in.



Soundgarden would be eligible a year sooner than Nirvana; Ultramega OK was released in '88.
 
2013-05-18 03:34:44 PM  

Coco LaFemme: As a Pink Floyd music fan, I must vociferously refute Mr. Stanley's assertion that KISS is the best band in the universe.


FTFY.
 
2013-05-18 03:40:15 PM  

Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.


Now, see?  You just illustrated my point.  "Paint it Black," or "Good Day, Sunshine."  It's moot, mate.

/"Beggar's Banquet"  was the Best. Stones. Album. Ever

//Your move!
 
2013-05-18 03:46:02 PM  

Wasteland: downstairs: AIC isn't yet.  First album was 1990, the rule is 25 years from their frist release.  So that would be 2015.  As it stands in 2013, your first album needed to be released in 1988 or earlier.  Also Nirvana's first album was 1989... so they'll be the first grunge act to go in.


Soundgarden would be eligible a year sooner than Nirvana; Ultramega OK was released in '88.


But grunge still scares the RRHoF crowd, Nirvana will be the first n in, guarantee it.
 
2013-05-18 03:54:30 PM  
What's this, then?

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-18 03:57:37 PM  

satanorsanta: This is the best introduction of "The best band in the farking universe".  Her words not mine


I would add this one as well.  http://youtu.be/LFqBer329KE
 
2013-05-18 03:58:42 PM  
Also when the heck is Cheap Trick gonna be inducted?
 
2013-05-18 04:03:05 PM  
The Cure, The Cars, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Iron Maiden, and even Bon Jovi should get in before the action figure salesmen.
 
2013-05-18 04:05:56 PM  
They qualify for the Hall of Fame because they are famous, they put on a fun act (never saw them, but that's the consensus) and play rock music.

Being the best band?  Hardly.  Catchy tunes and sploshuns are their trade.  Without the sploshuns and showmanship, can the music stand on its own?  Are their mid-level songs (not their worst nor their best) distinctive of their sound and form, and stand apart from others in the same genre?  Or are they a one-trick pony, serving the same song with slightly different notes or words?

They're McDonalds - fine if it's all you can find, or it's your mood, but shows a distinct lack of breadth or substance if it's all you have.
 
2013-05-18 04:12:20 PM  
CSB:

Sometime in the '70s, the neighbor kids decided to dress up as Kiss for Halloween. Being conscientious fans, they did a trial run in September in full get-up, and went door-to-door, polling the neighborhood on whether they "looked enough like Kiss."

My immigrant father, with zero knowledge of American culture, and even less patience for fools, answered the door with his shotgun and threatened to blow their heads off if they ever showed up on his property looking like idiots again.
 
2013-05-18 04:14:40 PM  
The R&R HOF has NO CRED whatsoever.
Run DMC and Public Enemy?
COME ON.
 
2013-05-18 04:17:49 PM  

Vangor: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: I'd say Nirvana is a safe bet, and Pearl Jam, maybe Soundgarden and STP.

Alice in Chains is eligible and deserving (new album!), Soundgarden needs to be in, Nirvana is obvious, Pearl Jam isn't eligible, and Stone Temple Pilots are eligible but not seeing an influence the way the other three have. Judas Priest, Ozzy, and Deep Purple do need to be in, too; not a fan of Ozzy, but whatever.


The new album sounds so much like their early stuff from the Layne Staley era, it's eerie. Choosing William DuVall was a brilliant move in their part. And yes, they are deserving.
 
2013-05-18 04:20:06 PM  
KISS rocks.  Best live show you'll ever see.  More gold records than the Beatles.  Unlike many acts in the Hall, they actually sing and play instruments.  They focus on melody rather than musicianship, but isn't that a good thing?  As musicians, they're no slouches, either.  KISS unplugged proved in 1995 that without the makeup, explosions, and distortion, underneath there are good SONGS.  Bonus points for being entertaining and making money along the way.
 
2013-05-18 04:20:54 PM  
Just remember:

KISS spelled backwards is SUCKS.
 
2013-05-18 04:22:40 PM  

puddleonfire: The R&R HOF has NO CRED whatsoever.
Run DMC and Public Enemy?
COME ON.


You chose two of the most legendary and influential groups of the last 30 years to prove they have no cred? Old timer rock fans are kind of annoying.
 
2013-05-18 04:27:18 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: CSB:

Sometime in the '70s, the neighbor kids decided to dress up as Kiss for Halloween. Being conscientious fans, they did a trial run in September in full get-up, and went door-to-door, polling the neighborhood on whether they "looked enough like Kiss."

My immigrant father, with zero knowledge of American culture, and even less patience for fools, answered the door with his shotgun and threatened to blow their heads off if they ever showed up on his property looking like idiots again.


That's not a cool story bro.  That's someone who needed to be thrown in jail bro.
 
2013-05-18 04:27:21 PM  
STP not get into the Hall of Fame? They were one of the biggest music bands of their time, and so was KISS. It would be a joke if neither got in. I bet both bands still sell a lot of albums/songs even now.
 
2013-05-18 04:30:47 PM  

puddleonfire: The R&R HOF has NO CRED whatsoever.
Run DMC and Public Enemy?
COME ON.


Who says Public Enemy can't rock?
 
2013-05-18 04:31:31 PM  

www.coverdude.com

 
2013-05-18 04:33:47 PM  

Pincy: Milo Minderbinder: CSB:

Sometime in the '70s, the neighbor kids decided to dress up as Kiss for Halloween. Being conscientious fans, they did a trial run in September in full get-up, and went door-to-door, polling the neighborhood on whether they "looked enough like Kiss."

My immigrant father, with zero knowledge of American culture, and even less patience for fools, answered the door with his shotgun and threatened to blow their heads off if they ever showed up on his property looking like idiots again.

That's not a cool story bro.  That's someone who needed to be thrown in jail bro.


His theory was that if you act stupidly, don't be surprised when stupid things happen to you.

/I would have used the garden hose, but hey, too each his own
 
2013-05-18 04:35:44 PM  

Cargo: Coco LaFemme: As a Pink Floyd music fan human being, I must vociferously refute Mr. Stanley's assertion that KISS is the best band in the universe.

FTFY.

FTFY.
 
182
2013-05-18 04:37:11 PM  

danielscissorhands: What's this, then?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x330]


crap,
 
2013-05-18 05:01:56 PM  
Saw Kiss in the mid 70s, with Mott the Hoople and Rush for the warm up acts in Pittsburgh.
Rush kicked their ass with Mott giving a very good show as well, bunch of damn posers in makeup.
Crowd ate that shiat up though.
 
2013-05-18 05:07:01 PM  

182: danielscissorhands: What's this, then?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x330]

crap,


I am assuming you are not mentally challenged, and are therefore
referring to KISS.
 
2013-05-18 05:12:27 PM  

gilgigamesh: Stanley, who has been making the media rounds to publicize the opening of a new branch of his Rock & Brews restaurant chain, questioned the legitimacy of the hall itself.

"Look, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is marketing," he said, without a shred of shame or even remote understanding the irony of such a statement .

FTF the article.


I think he does understand it, to be honest.  KISS (or at least Gene Simmons) has been utterly shameless about the fact that the band exists primarily to make money.

The thing is, KISS never pretended to be anything else.  The R&RHOF does.
 
2013-05-18 05:16:48 PM  

SpdrJay: Just remember:

KISS spelled backwards is SUCKS.


True, but in literal terms, it spells SSIK, as in:

"This music is so bad it makes me
SSIK."

/gimmick bands usually suck
 
2013-05-18 05:18:00 PM  
William Shatner needs to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. For the lulz.
 
2013-05-18 05:27:57 PM  

coffee fiend: Cargo: Coco LaFemme: As a Pink Floyd music fan human being, I must vociferously refute Mr. Stanley's assertion that KISS is the best band in the universe.

FTFY.
FTFY.


I concede.
 
2013-05-18 05:36:36 PM  

Cewley: Lousy novelty band for simpletons and mouth-breathers.


Sometimes, I wish FARK had a 'like' button. Took the words right out of my mouth.
 
2013-05-18 05:40:59 PM  
Best band in the universe? I beg to differ!

www.naderlibrary.com
4.bp.blogspot.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-18 06:02:03 PM  
SoupJohnB:  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."
www.hulstphotography.com
 
2013-05-18 06:07:31 PM  

danielscissorhands: What's this, then?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x330]


Overrated tripe?
 
2013-05-18 06:09:24 PM  

Eufah Kennidiets: danielscissorhands: What's this, then?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x330]

Overrated tripe?


I refer you to the above comment regarding the mentally handicapped.
 
2013-05-18 06:17:13 PM  
I'm no KISS fan but I can't think of a more irrelevant Hall Of Fame than the RRHOF.
 
2013-05-18 06:29:49 PM  

danielscissorhands: Eufah Kennidiets: danielscissorhands: What's this, then?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x330]

Overrated tripe?

I refer you to the above comment regarding the mentally handicapped.


No, KISS is worse.  All image, and with the exception of a few songs, no substance.
 
2013-05-18 06:32:35 PM  
It's actually a misnomer.

The correct name would be "The Cleveland Hall Of Popular Music Acts That Jann Wenner Doesn't Dislike".
 
2013-05-18 06:38:30 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Oh, look, a music hipster thread where everyone can masturbate about how Neil Peart's wanky, pointless drum solos are the best thing evar and find out which bands they should no longer be listening to because a second person has heard of that band.

Everyone point and laugh.

/Kiss should be in the rock and roll hall of fame. If they let Rush in, anyone can make it in.


Any Rush fan who actually knows the history of the band would give a grudging nod of approval to Kiss. They toured together in the mid 70's and the two bands have been good friends ever since. Geddy has done a number of interviews acknowledging that tour for showing them the importance of a strong work ethic which is largely responsible for the longevity of the band.
 
2013-05-18 06:41:36 PM  
Also it's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Taste or Talent. Kiss has been part of pop culture off and on for the past 40 decades (hell I had Kiss lunchbox when I was wee one) - they deserve a place.
 
2013-05-18 06:48:50 PM  

Snapper Carr: Also it's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Taste or Talent. Kiss has been part of pop culture off and on for the past 40 decades (hell I had Kiss lunchbox when I was wee one) - they deserve a place.


images.cryhavok.org
 
2013-05-18 07:00:53 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Mugato: Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.

Beastie Boys are more rock than KISS.  Public Enemy is more rock than KISS.  Hell, Grandmaster Flash is more rock than KISS.  KISS is to rock music what Poison, Warrant, Winger, and Ratt were to metal.


This! Thread is OVER!

Yes Paul keep telling yourself that KISS needs to be in. TRUST ME, there's a LEAST a page of people NOT in that SHOULD be in that have far more talent than KISS ever does.
 
2013-05-18 07:01:02 PM  
That BOC isn't in, when bands that were(are) heavily influenced by them are in, is mind numbingly stupid.
 
2013-05-18 07:01:04 PM  

ScaryBottles: SoupJohnB:  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."
[www.hulstphotography.com image 422x269]


Steve Martin was in the Beatles?

/knew that line of reasoning didn't originate with me!
 
2013-05-18 07:06:00 PM  

poot_rootbeer: It's actually a misnomer.

The correct name would be "The Cleveland Hall Of Popular Music Acts That Jann Wenner Doesn't Dislike".


Explains Rush
 
2013-05-18 07:06:53 PM  

danielscissorhands: Snapper Carr: Also it's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Taste or Talent. Kiss has been part of pop culture off and on for the past 40 decades (hell I had Kiss lunchbox when I was wee one) - they deserve a place.


farm4.static.flickr.com

www.skooldays.com

www.brooklynvegan.com

www.brooklynvegan.com
 
2013-05-18 07:14:01 PM  
They deserve a seat just for having an entire catalog about nothing but pussy.
 
2013-05-18 07:17:35 PM  

satanorsanta: This is the best introduction of "The best band in the farking universe".  Her words not mine


Great intro, stupid song. I never got them. I guess I'm old.
 
2013-05-18 07:30:42 PM  

Mugato: Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.


Why would a rap group want to be in? Any more than a rock band would want to be in a Rap HOF?  Serious question.
 
2013-05-18 07:33:10 PM  

Cewley: Lousy novelty band for simpletons and mouth-breathers.


All that needs to be said.
 
2013-05-18 07:41:49 PM  

danielscissorhands: Snapper Carr: Also it's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Taste or Talent. Kiss has been part of pop culture off and on for the past 40 decades (hell I had Kiss lunchbox when I was wee one) - they deserve a place.

[images.cryhavok.org image 500x332]


Thats my point as well. They were mediocre, but they cemented a place in Rock & Roll fame, so they deserve their place.
 
2013-05-18 07:43:51 PM  

John Buck 41: Why would a rap group want to be in? Any more than a rock band would want to be in a Rap HOF?  Serious question.


Is there a hip-hop hall of fame? Anyways, when they let Madonna in you should have realized it wasn't a HOF strictly for rock but the post-rock modern era of popular music. It's also funny to me to see the purists get so bent out of shape about it.
 
2013-05-18 07:46:30 PM  
Oh and as to why they'd want to be in the hall, I think it has to do a lot with the genre actually getting some form of respect from the mostly white rock establishment, respect they didn't get and had to earn back in the 80s.
 
2013-05-18 07:50:16 PM  

Speaker2Animals: I wanna rock and roll all day, and party every night.

Repeat 50 times, call it a song and 50,000 mouth breathers howl, sing along and light their Bics.


Then do it again for God Gave Rock N Roll To You
 
2013-05-18 07:54:18 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.


Yes.
 
2013-05-18 08:09:15 PM  

TheJoe03: John Buck 41: Why would a rap group want to be in? Any more than a rock band would want to be in a Rap HOF?  Serious question.

Is there a hip-hop hall of fame? Anyways, when they let Madonna in you should have realized it wasn't a HOF strictly for rock but the post-rock modern era of popular music. It's also funny to me to see the purists get so bent out of shape about it.


I'm not bent out of shape because as I said upthread, it's the most irrelevant HoF there is. if they just changed the name to Pop Music HoF they might gain back some credibility.
 
2013-05-18 08:09:40 PM  
KISS achieved greatness and personifies the American Dream.

OOH YEAH!!!
 
2013-05-18 08:24:19 PM  
Overall I think Kiss is shiatty, and I will tell you from experience that Paul and Gene are insufferable douchebags.

That being said:

There are many bands in the R&RHOF that never came close to writing a rock song as simple, perfect and great as "Rock And Roll All Nite".

There.  I said it and I will stand behind it.
 
2013-05-18 08:25:00 PM  

John Buck 41: I'm not bent out of shape because as I said upthread, it's the most irrelevant HoF there is. if they just changed the name to Pop Music HoF they might gain back some credibility.


That's what I keep saying. Why call it the Rock and Roll HoF when all of these non-R&R acts are being admitted?
 
2013-05-18 08:28:33 PM  
ABBA, Donna Summer, and Madonna are inductees yet Iron Maiden isn't?
 
2013-05-18 08:30:22 PM  

MisatoNERV: ABBA, Donna Summer, and Madonna are inductees yet Iron Maiden isn't?


There's a true injustice.
 
2013-05-18 08:59:59 PM  
Kiss was the Bieber of its time.
 
2013-05-18 10:04:59 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

To  be fair, Kiss isn't even as good as The Monkees.

/have you heard Mike Nesmith's stuff?


Seriously, they should've been in before the Sex Pistols at least a year, despite the latter being more rocking.
 
2013-05-18 10:13:44 PM  

ScaryBottles: danielscissorhands: Snapper Carr: Also it's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Taste or Talent. Kiss has been part of pop culture off and on for the past 40 decades (hell I had Kiss lunchbox when I was wee one) - they deserve a place.

[farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

[www.skooldays.com image 450x220]

[www.brooklynvegan.com image 400x300]

[www.brooklynvegan.com image 400x382]


You do know that the Bee Gees are in there, right?
 
2013-05-18 11:42:23 PM  

downstairs: Meh, I only know like 4 KISS songs... but who cares, they're fun.  Saw them live once, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a fairly cool experience.


A Kiss show is something that has to be seen in order to understand just how over the top it is. Gimmicky? Yes. Lots of marketing? Yes. But you go into it knowing that from the start, they don't lie about it, and they sold out stadiums around the world even after 40 years. R&RHOF is where they should be at some point. It's a Hall of Fame, not a critique of their music. By any measure they are a) a rock and roll band, b) are world famous and c) have a longevity that many other bands will never have. A flash in the pan they are not.
 
2013-05-19 12:35:47 AM  

Wasn't Looking at his Neck: FirstNationalBastard: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

To  be fair, Kiss isn't even as good as The Monkees.

/have you heard Mike Nesmith's stuff?

Seriously, they should've been in before the Sex Pistols at least a year, despite the latter being more rocking.


I don't see how you could compare the....

Monkeys

To the...

Sex Pistols. :D
 
2013-05-19 01:00:02 AM  

John Buck 41: TheJoe03: John Buck 41: Why would a rap group want to be in? Any more than a rock band would want to be in a Rap HOF?  Serious question.

Is there a hip-hop hall of fame? Anyways, when they let Madonna in you should have realized it wasn't a HOF strictly for rock but the post-rock modern era of popular music. It's also funny to me to see the purists get so bent out of shape about it.

I'm not bent out of shape because as I said upthread, it's the most irrelevant HoF there is. if they just changed the name to Pop Music HoF they might gain back some credibility.


Pop has an awful connotation. All the artists in the hall are mainstream, but I wouldn't consider all of them pop. Music HOF might be the best new name option.

/honestly a rock n roll band hasn't been added in a long time. That's technically just the early rock style, as opposed to rock.
 
2013-05-19 01:03:40 AM  

Duck_of_Doom: They qualify for the Hall of Fame because they are famous, they put on a fun act (never saw them, but that's the consensus) and play rock music.

Being the best band?  Hardly.  Catchy tunes and sploshuns are their trade.  Without the sploshuns and showmanship, can the music stand on its own?  Are their mid-level songs (not their worst nor their best) distinctive of their sound and form, and stand apart from others in the same genre?  Or are they a one-trick pony, serving the same song with slightly different notes or words?

They're McDonalds - fine if it's all you can find, or it's your mood, but shows a distinct lack of breadth or substance if it's all you have.


I think the Ramones are already in
 
2013-05-19 01:19:01 AM  

Mugato: Well at least they're rock. They have rap acts in that farking thing.


Because rap has in no way influenced rock music, amirite?
 
2013-05-19 02:24:03 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: FirstNationalBastard: Oh, look, a music hipster thread where everyone can masturbate about how Neil Peart's wanky, pointless drum solos are the best thing evar and find out which bands they should no longer be listening to because a second person has heard of that band.

Everyone point and laugh.

/Kiss should be in the rock and roll hall of fame. If they let Rush in, anyone can make it in.

Of all the ridiculous members of the RRHOF (Madonna, for example) and you chose Rush to make your point?

I shudder to think what you must listen to.


This.

And Kiss sucks..
 
2013-05-19 02:40:36 AM  
KISS is good, but I just don't know if they are Blondie or Public Enemy level rock and roll.
 
2013-05-19 02:55:42 AM  

jj86: RRHOF is a joke. Justin Bieber will be inducted before Chicago, Journey, Styx or Kiss get in. Public Enemy? Really? Who's next? Eminem? They're a joke.


Hmmm, where's the "not this shiat again" meme when you need it (regarding Rap being part of the hall)?

Say what you will about the RRHOF and their ODD choices (I will NEVER understand why ABBA is in there) for the hall/those who should already be there, but to NOT include rap would not do the hall justice. Same as if you left Blues out of the Hall. Rock n roll has been influenced by and has influenced MANY different music genres. and like it or not, RAP/Hip Hop has a role in the hall. So far, they are doing pretty decent with the choices as far as Rap/Hip-Hop goes.

in other words, STFU about rap not belonging in the hall. The argument is getting old.
 
2013-05-19 05:21:54 AM  

mafiageek1980: jj86: RRHOF is a joke. Justin Bieber will be inducted before Chicago, Journey, Styx or Kiss get in. Public Enemy? Really? Who's next? Eminem? They're a joke.

Hmmm, where's the "not this shiat again" meme when you need it (regarding Rap being part of the hall)?

Say what you will about the RRHOF and their ODD choices (I will NEVER understand why ABBA is in there) for the hall/those who should already be there, but to NOT include rap would not do the hall justice. Same as if you left Blues out of the Hall. Rock n roll has been influenced by and has influenced MANY different music genres. and like it or not, RAP/Hip Hop has a role in the hall. So far, they are doing pretty decent with the choices as far as Rap/Hip-Hop goes.

in other words, STFU about rap not belonging in the hall. The argument is getting old.


I'd rather select rap getting in there far more than pop. F*ck Madonna and Abba.
 
2013-05-19 05:39:00 AM  

Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.


That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.
 
2013-05-19 05:49:33 AM  

silvervial: It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.


♫Imagine all The Beatles as black-leather bad-boy real selves♫
 
2013-05-19 07:40:40 AM  
"Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot."

Where's the Hero tag?

/kiss sucks.
 
2013-05-19 08:26:19 AM  
Saw them live in concert. Freaking terrible musicians/singers.
 
2013-05-19 09:12:42 AM  

Wasteland: downstairs: AIC isn't yet.  First album was 1990, the rule is 25 years from their frist release.  So that would be 2015.  As it stands in 2013, your first album needed to be released in 1988 or earlier.  Also Nirvana's first album was 1989... so they'll be the first grunge act to go in.


Soundgarden would be eligible a year sooner than Nirvana; Ultramega OK was released in '88.


And Soundgarden is by far the best of the Seattle bands.
 
2013-05-19 09:27:52 AM  

silvervial: Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.


Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.
 
2013-05-19 09:44:50 AM  
 
2013-05-19 09:47:39 AM  

JK8Fan: silvervial: Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.

Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.


The "Mods" and the "Rockers" were coming into vogue, as fashion/lifestyle trends in the early "counterculture."  It always seemed to me that the Beatles went into one mode, and the Stones the other.
 
2013-05-19 10:38:18 AM  
"It's absurd for anybody to look around and hear the acts and artists who cite us as an inspiration, and then tell me that we're not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame,"

The same goes for Mitch Ryder.
 
2013-05-19 10:56:49 AM  
Kiss is a very very very awful band,
 
2013-05-19 02:40:26 PM  
KISS can play circles around Nirvana, look much better while doing so, and the songs are a lot more fun.
 
2013-05-19 03:49:01 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: KISS can play circles around Nirvana, look much better while doing so, and the songs are a lot more fun.


Who gives a shiat? Kiss sucks and Nirvana will always be more respected.
 
2013-05-19 04:10:32 PM  
The people trying to say that KISS were bad musicians, but Nirvana should be in the Hall give a shiat.  KISS inspired millions more kids to play air guitar in front of their mirrors and eventually become musicians than Cobain did.

KISS were better musicians, better entertainers, and had a huge impact on multiple generations.
 
2013-05-19 04:14:07 PM  
Nirvana has way more impact than Kiss ever had, unless you think their influence on ICP and other gimmicky garbage is bigger than Nirvana's impact on alternative rock. Nirvana was a better BAND with better SONGS and obviously more influence. It's kind of funny to see someone actually think anyone today gives half a shiat about Kiss, they're a joke band. I'm 23 and there's WAAAAY more Nirvana fans than Kiss fans. Not even a contest, it's not the 80s anymore.
 
2013-05-19 05:07:17 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: KISS can play circles around Nirvana, look much better while doing so, and the songs are a lot more fun.


Once again, a perfect Fark handle/comment combo.
 
2013-05-19 05:08:26 PM  

TheJoe03: obviously more influence


1. Hair metal sales are winding dawn
2. ???
2. Influence!
 
2013-05-19 05:36:21 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Pincy: Milo Minderbinder: CSB:

Sometime in the '70s, the neighbor kids decided to dress up as Kiss for Halloween. Being conscientious fans, they did a trial run in September in full get-up, and went door-to-door, polling the neighborhood on whether they "looked enough like Kiss."

My immigrant father, with zero knowledge of American culture, and even less patience for fools, answered the door with his shotgun and threatened to blow their heads off if they ever showed up on his property looking like idiots again.

That's not a cool story bro.  That's someone who needed to be thrown in jail bro.

His theory was that if you act stupidly, don't be surprised when stupid things happen to you.

/I would have used the garden hose, but hey, too each his own


Sounds like a brave guy. Every child should have a gun pulled on them for wearing costumes. I hope he's done time in jail.
 
2013-05-19 06:04:33 PM  

LewDux: 1. Hair metal sales are winding dawn
2. ???
2. Influence!


You're saying Nirvana hasn't been influential on modern rock? I see a whole lot more bands that were influenced by Nirvana than Kiss. I guess there was that midget Kiss band and ICP, great influence Kiss had. I'd say Alice Cooper was the bigger influence if you want to act like metal still matters.
 
2013-05-19 06:17:28 PM  
I don't know how this thread morphed into a Nirvana suckfest but they suck as much as KISS, just in different ways.
 
2013-05-19 06:18:48 PM  

John Buck 41: I don't know how this thread morphed into a Nirvana suckfest but they suck as much as KISS, just in different ways.


That's why I don't get into the quality in this discussion, just the relevance and influence. Stryper brought em up though.
 
2013-05-19 06:33:13 PM  

TheJoe03: LewDux: 1. Hair metal sales are winding dawn
2. ???
2. Influence!

You're saying Nirvana hasn't been influential on modern rock? I see a whole lot more bands that were influenced by Nirvana than Kiss. I guess there was that midget Kiss band and ICP, great influence Kiss had. I'd say Alice Cooper was the bigger influence if you want to act like metal still matters.


Yeah, lots of emo (sorry mr.T) bands around. I meant that Nirvana is influential because label Stayed Away (ba dum tssshhhh)
 
2013-05-19 06:34:39 PM  

LewDux: Yeah, lots of emo (sorry mr.T) bands around.


It's still 2005? Is there a lot of nu metal bands too?
 
2013-05-19 06:45:17 PM  

TheJoe03: Nirvana has way more impact than Kiss ever had, unless you think their influence on ICP and other gimmicky garbage is bigger than Nirvana's impact on alternative rock. Nirvana was a better BAND with better SONGS and obviously more influence. It's kind of funny to see someone actually think anyone today gives half a shiat about Kiss, they're a joke band. I'm 23 and there's WAAAAY more Nirvana fans than Kiss fans. Not even a contest, it's not the 80s anymore.


KISS kind of changed how huge RnR shows were done.   They did it bigger louder, etc. than anyone before.
 
2013-05-19 06:47:22 PM  

mjbok: KISS kind of changed how huge RnR shows were done.   They did it bigger louder, etc. than anyone before.


Understood, I don't claim they are completely irrelevant but if you want to compare them to a band that is MUSICALLY relevant then you lose me.
 
2013-05-19 06:59:03 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: KISS were better musicians, better

circus entertainers, and had a huge impact on multiple generations. make-up sales.

Fixed.
 
2013-05-19 08:08:16 PM  
To this day, the only full Kiss album I can claim to like is Lick It Up

/Ace's solo album is good too
 
2013-05-19 10:23:00 PM  

SoupJohnB: JK8Fan: silvervial: Coco LaFemme: I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.

Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.

The "Mods" and the "Rockers" were coming into vogue, as fashion/lifestyle trends in the early "counterculture."  It always seemed to me that the Beatles went into one mode, and the Stones the other.


Actually, we have Ringo's own take on that:

Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: Um, no, I'm a mocker.
 
2013-05-19 10:43:21 PM  
Multiple generations of guitarists strummed their first tennis rackets because of KISS.  You can't credibly deny the influence that they had over millions of future guitarists.  And with Unplugged, they proved that underneath the spectacle lies good songs by competent musicians.
 
2013-05-19 10:51:01 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: Multiple generations of guitarists strummed their first tennis rackets because of KISS.  You can't credibly deny the influence that they had over millions of future guitarists.  And with Unplugged, they proved that underneath the spectacle lies good songs by competent musicians.


I've been playing drums in rock bands since my sophomore year of high school (1971). I have never heard any guitarist in all my years of hanging out with and being in rock bands EVER mention Kiss as an influence. Not once. The only person I've ever met in real life who actually liked Kiss was a bass player we auditioned about four years ago. He didn't pass the audition.
 
2013-05-19 10:55:36 PM  

JK8Fan: silvervial: Coco LaFemme: SoupJohnB: Bathia_Mapes: No, Paul Stanley. The correct answer is The Beatles. And you will NEVER, EVER been as good as them.

I concur. In *greatest* rock and roll band debates, I've never bitten on any "Yeah, but..." discussions.  They're all endless loops.  I simply say, "Listen.  There were the Beatles; and then there was everybody else."

/some people get agitated, but also understand that I'm not being pedantic arse-hole about it

//I'm just fixing a hole, where the rain gets in

I like some of their stuff, but I'd pick the Stones over the Beatles.  The Beatles are the guy you bring home to meet your parents.  The Stones are the guy you fark in the alley behind your parents house.

That's the misconception a lot of people have about the Beatles vs. Stones, but it's not true. The Beatles were hard core before the Stones. They were drugged to the gills and rocking in Hamburg before the Stones, they were farking everything that moved in Germany before the Stones. They wrote songs for the Stones, they taught the Stones a lot of what they'd already learned by working in the grit and dirt of a German port city.

It was Brian Epstein who figured out that, while he was seriously attracted to their black-leather bad-boy real selves, the band and himself would make shiatloads more money if they literally cleaned up their act. They had one way to make money, but their sensibilities had been formed an entirely different way by grubbing about in Germany during their formative teen-age years.

Besides, for some reason, people believe that the Stones were the dangerous street toughs and the Beatles the good little middle class kids. It is actually quite the opposite. The Beatles were poor kids from Liverpool that were cleaned up and marketed by Epstein. The Rolling Stones were the middle class Londoners.



To burn it all down to its essence:

The Beatles were hoodlums marketed as choirboys.
The Stones were choirboys marketed as hoodlums.

Quite successfully, too.
 
2013-05-19 11:17:13 PM  

Mole Man: Also when the heck is Cheap Trick gonna be inducted?

 
2013-05-19 11:45:53 PM  
Uhhhh.... 'puter issues.  What I MEANT to say was, I agree wholeheartedly with Stanley.  The RNRHoF is a sad friggin joke, considering Wenner's predilections and influence, and the terrible shiat that is already IN the hall vs. legends who are not.

Any real RnRHoF should consider influence, longevity, and musical skill\talent etc.   By such measures, bands such as Cheap Trick should have been in years ago.

As it is, I no longer care that they're not, and in many ways I hope they never get inducted.  In the words of Rick Nielsen himself, "The RNRHoF should BE so lucky to have us."

In most circumstances I would consider that an arrogant statement.  In this instance, not at all.
 
2013-05-19 11:59:09 PM  

dinwv: In the words of Rick Nielsen himself, "The RNRHoF should BE so lucky to have us."


If he actually said that, good for him.
 
2013-05-20 12:10:36 AM  

John Buck 41: dinwv: In the words of Rick Nielsen himself, "The RNRHoF should BE so lucky to have us."

If he actually said that, good for him.


He DID say it; in fact, I think on more than one occasion.  I'm looking to see if I can find a vid clip link of it.
 
Displayed 143 of 143 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report