- This topic has 11 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey y’all! As you may (or may not) know. Rolling Stone magazine recently came out with a list of the 100 greatest singers of all time. I was looking at Rolling Stone’s ballots that they received to put together their list of 100 greatest singers and I saw a familiar name. While Bruce himself did not make the list
, they asked him who he thought are the 20 greatest singers of all time. You can see a copy of his ballot at http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gall … t/photo/18Do you agree with Bruce’s picks???
:Whadda thinnk????
Larry
Larry wrote:Hey y’all! As you may (or may not) know. Rolling Stone magazine recently came out with a list of the 100 greatest singers of all time. I was looking at Rolling Stone’s ballots that they received to put together their list of 100 greatest singers and I saw a familiar name. While Bruce himself did not make the list , they asked him who he thought are the 20 greatest singers of all time. You can see a copy of his ballot at http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gall … t/photo/18
Do you agree with Bruce’s picks???
:Whadda thinnk????
Larry
I have a few thoughts about this. First of all, I find these polls interesting and yet overwhelmingly meaningless inthe grand scheme of things. That said, and with the understanding that I come from this as a huuuuuge Beatles fan, how did he leave off John Lennon or Paul McCartney? I would have thought that at least one of the two should’ve made the list. Heck, Lennon should’ve been on there if for no other reason than “Twist And Shout!”
I also have one very interesting and happy thought. Bruce being chosen as one of the folks to vote on such a poll for Rolling Stone Magazine bodes very well for Bruce being nominated and inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame. I have read in many other forums that one of the keys to even getting nominated is having at least a semi-blessing from Jan Wenner, founder of Rolling Stone. This blessing is being used as one of the reasons for Chicago having never been even nominated, in spite of the amazing body of work that they’ve produced. Likewise for any band that got the label of “progressive rock” from Rolling Stone. Since that is not a highly thought-of subgenre of rock in RS’s eyes, there are also no nominations for acts like Yes or King Crimson. I still think the only way Frank Zappa got in was by dying and getting a ton of super-positive posthumous press about his life and career.
So, given my “Chicago’s not in” axe to grind, I’m glad that Bruce is on the good side of Rolling Stone. He has also given us a most impressive body of work that is worthy of being honored among the best of the best. Besides, it’d be refreshing to have someone in there who is a virtuoso at his instrument (and has yet managed to avoid the “prog” tag), who is known for intelligent and thought-provoking lyrics, who lived through it all, and who has no reputation for being a major jerk. They’re already speaking about people who might be Presidential candidates in 2012, so getting ready for a push to get Bruce in the RRHOF in 2011 isn’t all that far off.
Rich
Is 2011 the next HoF induction then? I’d SO love to see Bruce make the cut! Very well-deserved! Good thinking, Rich!!!
Vic
well…
I’d have to put in…
Prince.
Maan he’s got a range and a stunning performance.Freddie Mercury.
Ditto,- awesome range and great performance.George Michael.
You simply can’t dismiss this guys gift. One of the reasons he was one of the only people able to front Queen when Freddie died.Bonnie Rait.
Yup I agree bit time with this one. Amazing control.Celine Dion.
Love her or hate her,- or merely stare in awe at her horsey face. She is a truly great singer.in fact add to her Leona Lewis, Mariah Carey, and all that lot – they all deserve huge credit at their range and control.
plus many more,- Frank Sinatra, David Lee Roth (I dont know of ANYONE who can abuse their vocal chords like this guy and make it sound wonderful), James Brown – agree 100%, oh Eva Cassidy, she’s not technically amazing but her ability to connect is.
Kind regards
Dave Rich
Don’t they need to have been around for 25 years before an induction to the HoF? That makes 2011 right on schedule.
Hmmmmmmm… how would one (or hundreds) go about supporting a nomination?
si_twining wrote:Don’t they need to have been around for 25 years before an induction to the HoF? That makes 2011 right on schedule.Hmmmmmmm… how would one (or hundreds) go about supporting a nomination?
It has to be 25 years from the artist’s first commercial release. I’ve seen a posting on another board where some of the key players are listed, along with mailing addresses. I’ll try to gather than info and repost it here.
The other site is one for fans of Chicago, an they’re pretty much ticked off that they’ve been ignored in the whole RRHOF process, in spite of the sheer volume of quality releases, the overwhelming number of records sold, the continuous touring, and the number of songs that are considered “classics” by many people (with the possible exception of the people who vote for the RRHOF). I think the conventional wisdom among that crowd is that Chicago will never get its’ due as long as Jann Wenner is involved with the Hall, since he hasn’t liked them from the start. The same goes for other “progressive” bands like Jethro Tull and Yes and King Crimson and such.
Bruce will fare better in their eyes, I believe, because of his tenure with the Grateful Dead (for whom he actually gave the induction introcutory speech, IIRC), the amazing lifespan of songs like The Way It Is, his connections with other RRHOF-member artists like Bruce Springsteen and Elton John, and his very affable personality, which once gave him the nickname of “Rock and Roll’s Best Friend”.
– Rich
OK, here’s the post from the Chicago chat forum. They also included contact information for former-President Bill Clinton, since he’s a friend of Jann Wenner’s and is also a Chicago fan. I left that part out.
Some poster on the Chicago forum wrote:HELP INDUCT CHICAGO INTO THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME!Chicago:
Terry Kath
Peter Cetera
Robert Lamm
James Pankow
Lee Loughnane
Walter Parazaider
Danny Seraphine
Bill Champlin
Jason ScheffSend Your Letters to the Following:
Joel Peresman, President
The Rock And Roll Hall of Fame Foundation
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10104
1-212-484-1754Terry Stewart, President
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum
1100 Rock and Roll Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
(East Ninth Street at Lake Erie)
president@rockhall.orgMuseum Offices:1-216-781-7625
staff@rockhall.orgJann Wenner
Rollingstone Main Offices, 2nd Floor
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-0298
1-212-484-1616Jon Landau Management
158 Rowayton Avenue
Rowayton, Connecticut, 06853
1-203-854-0528Anthony DeCurtis
ADeCurtis@aol.comFrom what I’ve been able to gather from looking at the RRHOF web site, it’s the Foundation that does the nominations, and not the Museum, so I’m not sure how much good it would do to write to Terry Stewart. I think the best place to start the process of getting Bruce nominated is to write to Jann Wenner. He seems to be the driving force behind this whole deal.
– Rich
nothing wrong with a nomination, but I do wonder whether a campaign like this would be a help or a hindrance.
I’m not sure whether applying some form of pressure is a risky path to take.
si_twining wrote:nothing wrong with a nomination, but I do wonder whether a campaign like this would be a help or a hindrance.I’m not sure whether applying some form of pressure is a risky path to take.
True. Perhaps the best thing to do is to wait until 2011 and see what happens. If he gets snubbed on 2011, then maybe a campaign would be in order.
– Rich
rdiakun wrote:I think the conventional wisdom among that crowd is that Chicago will never get its’ due as long as Jann Wenner is involved with the Hall, since he hasn’t liked them from the start. The same goes for other “progressive” bands like Jethro Tull and Yes and King Crimson and such.– Rich
Veering off the topic just a bit-I have a question. Does Jann Wenner have any specific reasons for not liking ‘progressive” bands or does he only profess a general dislike for them?
Jackie
I wrote:I think the conventional wisdom among that crowd is that Chicago will never get its’ due as long as Jann Wenner is involved with the Hall, since he hasn’t liked them from the start. The same goes for other “progressive” bands like Jethro Tull and Yes and King Crimson and such.Jackie wrote:Veering off the topic just a bit-I have a question. Does Jann Wenner have any specific reasons for not liking ‘progressive” bands or does he only profess a general dislike for them?From what I’ve read in the past, he has the general impression that they are too overblown and self-indulgent at showing off their impressive musical chops and training, and thus, to him, not “the voice of the common man” (i.e real rock and roll). Apparently, if someone takes rock and meshes it with the blues, or folk, or jazz, it’s fine, but if you mix classical influences with rock and somehow, it’s no good. And so, progressove rock is kept out by those who have contempt for the genre because of its classical roots. I’ve seen quotes from some RS reviews of albums by artists like Yes and Genesis and Jethro Tull that basically allude to this. I’ll have to hunt around for the actual reviews.
– Rich
, they asked him who he thought are the 20 greatest singers of all time. 
You can see a copy of his ballot at 
:
- The forum ‘General chat’ is closed to new topics and replies.