Old Joad Posted Monday at 12:29 AM Share Posted Monday at 12:29 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane_B. Posted Monday at 03:57 AM Share Posted Monday at 03:57 AM I didn't watch the video, but I read an article about it. I think she's being a bit oversensitive about it. That said, a lot of people don't really give a flyin' hoot about the R&R Hall Of Fame so I've read. I think I was there once at their museum or whatever it is. The only thing I can remember is seeing one of Bowie's costumes. And I don't know why I remember just that, I'm not a fan at all of his work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted Monday at 03:18 PM Share Posted Monday at 03:18 PM I read an article about it (didn't watch the video) and personally, I think she is making a wrong decision. And I disagree with her sensitivity about the studio musicians being called The Wrecking Crew. If you are making a mint, doing what you love to do, it doesn't matter what they call you. But it's her choice. Sadly, it doesn't look likely that I'll ever get nominated. But she is still a great bassist, and fine guitarist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starship Krupa Posted yesterday at 02:27 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:27 AM I don't think the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is much of anything more than a tourist attraction. Still, I don't quite understand her stance here. It seems like with her induction, their board or whatever is now finally recognizing the unsung session players. So why would she not show up for the ceremony? Seems like it would be an opportunity for her to say something at the podium like "it's great to see the Hall acknowledging the contributions of the many great session players. I hope that they continue to honor the many other deserving musicians." Words to that effect. I'd think it would be more constructive than a no-show protest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettelus Posted yesterday at 04:34 AM Share Posted yesterday at 04:34 AM Or... do a performance with studio musicians (e.g., Toto) then decline the award in person when presented, similar to what Marlon Brando did in 1973. Nothing puts the "powers that be" on the spot more than a highly publicized face-to-face put down. They cannot hide that with social media white wash, and it would last forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted 18 hours ago Share Posted 18 hours ago 11 hours ago, Starship Krupa said: I don't think the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is much of anything more than a tourist attraction. I agree with that. When an industry creates awards for itself, much more than what they say the award is about gets involved. Politics and money get involved in the award nominations and winners. I don't care if my favorite artist is in there or snubbed, and if something like this doesn't present itself to me, I don't even know who is in or who is out. But that's just me, others care very much about it, and that's OK, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starship Krupa Posted 13 hours ago Share Posted 13 hours ago 4 hours ago, Notes_Norton said: When an industry creates awards for itself.... I agree that entertainment industry awards seem to be silly opportunities for self-promotion and phony virtue signaling. The Motion Picture Academy lost me the year that Kramer vs. Kramer won over Apocalypse Now and All That Jazz. 1980 I believe. 1980 did a pretty good job of warning me what the next decade was going to be like. The Grammys have always seemed hopelessly out of touch to me. 1966: The New Vaudeville Band, a studio-only project, won Best Contemporary (R&R) Recording for the novelty song "Winchester Cathedral," which was a pastiche of English Music Hall music. Maybe there were some rock 'n' roll singles that came out in 1966 that would have been better choices. Have they ever lived down handing the Best Metal Album award to Jethro Tull? I've never paid much attention to them anyway. The artists I really like tend not to be Grammy material, and even if they were, who cares about the tastes of a bunch of record industry people? The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame seems to be below even those standards. The main criterion for inclusion is probably "who will make the greatest number of people likely to visit (and deflect accusations of racism and sexism)?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Walton Posted 12 hours ago Share Posted 12 hours ago The RHoF is a sham and I can understand why some would want to reject being a part of it. However, the reasons I've seen stated from her don't make logical sense. Reject it because it doesn't give recognition to the unsung heroes? Isn't that exactly what they are doing by adding her? She is a legend that for decades very few even knew about and frankly outside of music circles and youtube videos drawing attention to her as this "bet you didn't know" kind of content - she wouldn't be known to any kind of mass audience unlike the artists who's albums she put down tracks for. And as for the wrecking crew name. Well I think technically speaking there is some validity that group of amazing musician's did wreck the ability for others to get hired and fundamentally changed the artist / recording landscape in LA in particular. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now