Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Or disco...

I think disco was a much more viable form of music since it was rooted in R&B and soul.

There are some wonderful arrangements and playing on Disco. Any Quincy Jones production from this period has the top musicians from all fields playing.

Early rap was certainly innovative, but today's "talent" seems like a sub culture project in comparison.

Disco had some excellent arranging and does get a bad rap. I played it in the late '70s in two touring bands; some of the music was challenging to play well and was a good way to meet...

I have a collection of roots music, and some of it is most certainly rap. The difference is, it was a preacher! Of course the bass was not quite as LOUD!

All I'm saying, they have the same roots.

Anything Quincy Jones produces is good even if you don't like the music. I have Lesley Gore's greatest hits on CD and much of the stuff was recorded during the early 60's and sounds as good as anything recorded today.
I suppose rap music could be thought of as roots music, I have always wished it would be buried soon, unfortunately it's still played in 3000 watt car systems everywhere for all of our enjoyment.
"talent" haha!
There were some very good bass players playing disco, I'm still not a huge fan however except for a few certain tunes.
Calling Yes a rock n roll band is a stretch IMHO, Chuck Berry is rock n roll, Yes: ?, maybe they should create sub catagories like prog-rock for bands like that, I agree Squire should definitely get some kind of recognition.

No to Yes

The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame basically doesn't acknowledge explicitly "prog" bands as being any good or valuable, which I think is complete BS . . . they've got plenty of pre-prog and experimental stuff like Frank Zappa and the Moody Blues and such, but after that, it's like a whole era of music is invalid. I think everyone they've inducted so far deserves to be there (yes, even the Ramones, because you cannot possibly deny their influence in all of music since then), but they've passed over a TON of people who should without a doubt be there. Rush is the obvious example. Who's been greatly influenced by Rush? Metallica (in fact, metal as a genre owes a great debt to Rush, in addition to Deep Purple who have also been sadly passed over), Pantera, Megadeth, Primus (and the huge amount of Claypool side projects), Dream Theater, the Barenaked Ladies, The Smashing Pumpkins, Tool, Soundgarden, Rage Against the Machine, Audioslave, A Perfect Circle, Coheed & Cambria . . . just to name a few big dogs.

I think being instrumental in the influence for, creation, and persistent existence of a humongous subgenre of rock, i.e. metal., as well as being *the* prime example of progressive metal, justifies induction into a hall of fame dedicated to rock music.

Bob, as for your comment that Yes isn't really rock n roll, but Chuck Berry is, you're absolutely correct. Yes is rock, progressive rock, symphonic rock, whatever, but certainly not rock n roll (well, if you listen to them in their very early days, they did quite a bit of rock n roll, but that changed pretty quickly). However, considering that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has inducted PLENTY of artists that are much farther removed from "rock n roll" than Yes, I think it's safe to say that what the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is considering is simply the umbrella of "rock", of which rock n roll is (strangely) both a part and an ancestor.

Basically, though, the Hall of Fame is beholden to the idea that progressive rock is useless and unloved and has had zero effect whatsoever on music other than to be annoying (ignoring Pink Floyd, of course, because somehow "The Wall" is great but "Close to the Edge" is not), which is shared to a large degree by mainstream music press. Thus, Rush and Yes and Genesis and such bands who have had enormous influence on music will not be allowed into the Hall of Fame, ignoring a gigantic amount of music stretching from the mid-60s to the present day.

Yeah, it sucks. I agree with Bob that they should have sub-categories for genre, and then people can be appropriately recognized. Otherwise, it's like trying to choose between The Clash and ZZ Top: yeah, they're both incredibly and undeniably influential and important to rock music but in very different sub-genres, and as such, I think an argument as to who should be inducted over the other is a bit pointless.

Yeah, I'm done ranting now. The Hall of Fame should *at the least* induct King Crimson.

There are plenty of doo-wop,jazz and blues artists in the HOF. At least the above mentioned prog bands rocked and filled stadiums at one time. This is a big popularity contest, and what isn't popular, is slid in on snob appeal.

It's all "Rock n Roll" in the broad stroke.

Starship Trooper is on the radio right now and it sure rocks a lot more than Miles Davis(one of last years inducktees).

.

Miles was a great jazz player, but he only did one album that might qualify as a rock album and that was Bitches Brew.

As for instruments of Yes in that Museum...

..Do you SERIOUSLY think that Chris Squire would put his Cream 4001S in a glass display case?

No way, he's far too busy playing that one to even consider such a thing.

Wish I'd read your post, John. You always have something interesting to add, even if it may be pointed.