KISS Nominated For ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME Induction

[Jahfin]

I don't think a band having a niche audience should exclude them from induction. Just look at the Velvet Underground as one example. To clarify, I'm referring to when they were new, not the amount of fans they have now.

[Jahfin]

Rush was also influenced by the sound of U2 for a time but I don't think that ever defined them anymore than them being influenced by the Police did.

Big Star and the Replacements are a couple of other bands that have been extremely influential on lots of other artists but I doubt they'll ever be inducted into the Rock n' Roll of Fame. That doesn't lessen their impact any.

[Strider]

I don't think either Kiss or Rush deserve "Hall of Fame" status, whatever that is anyway. My loathing for these kind of crusty, musty notions of some museum-type enshrinement for an art form that by its very nature should be youthful, spontaneous, vibrant and ever-changing has already been stated by me.

I have an idea though...who died and made Jann Fucking Wenner king and arbiter of all things rock and roll? Rolling Stone magazine isn't fit to wipe my ass. I wouldn't even risk poisoning my fish by using it as fish-wrap.

Kiss has tons of money...I'm sure Rush does, too. Why don't they start their own rock n roll hall of fame? Nobody passionate about music gives a hoot what Rolling Stone thinks anyway. Why are they the only ones allowed to have a rock n roll hall.

Detroit's dying, right? Well, imagine the boost if Gene and the boys created their own hall in Detroit Rock City? It's close to Canada, so Rush fans could make the trip easily.

[Jahfin]

When asked about why they're not in the Hall of Fame in interviews, the members of Rush don't seem to care. Meanwhile, it's an obvious bone of contention with Simmons. If you haven't read the article I posted a link to above, you might want to read it just to see how ignorant the guy is. Not just about who and who isn't in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame but how completely out of touch he is with music in general. After reading that it's no wonder they aren't in.

As for Rolling Stone magazine, I consider myself to be a pretty passionate music fan and I read it. Yeah, there's lots of articles in it that I may skip over but there's usually one or two that I find very worth my while even if it's not about an artist I particularly care for. The recent issue with Whitney Houston on the cover is a prime example. I was never a fan of her music but I found the article about her in that issue to be very compelling reading.

[Jahfin]

I don't buy into the whole "music is dead" nonsense. Everywhere I turn I see signs of life but maybe that's because I live in a region that's very supportive of live music. One band in particular that's caught my ear in recent years is Last Year's Men but they're only the tip of the iceberg.

This was filmed at the Churchkey Records day party at Tir na nOg in Raleigh during the first Hopscotch Music Festival in 2010.

[Strider]

I'm having breakfast, so I didn't bother reading the article, Jahfin, as I didn't want to risk Gene Simmons causing me to hurl.

I'll grant you RS might occasionally have an interesting article or two...usually on politics or a memoriam such as Whitney, but not often enough to warrant a subscription or even picking it up at the newstand to browse. Besides, if RS does happen to get lucky and strike gold with a particular article, someone will eventually post it here or at some other internet depot and I can read it then.

But whether it is fair or not, I still consider RS to be a music magazine first, their primary raison d'être. Their music reviews and coverage ceased to be trustworthy decades ago and for me, if you fail at your primary mission, I don't care how many bells and whistles you have, you're not relevant.

In the 70s, Creem and NME and Trouser Press easily trumped RS...they turned me on to hundreds more bands in all genres than RS did, and in a more timely manner. Compared to the others, RS was late to the Punk Rock Ball.

I still read Lester Bangs, Greil Marcus, Hunter S. Thompson, Cameron Crowe and a few others whenever they had a piece, but RS was not the rock n roll bible they liked to portray themselves as. What's worse is that as they broadened their reach to include all of pop culture, their mediocrity spread. Peter Travers is one of the worst film critics of the last 25 years or so...he's a "Blurb whore".

Today, while there are no Creems, Crawdaddys, Trouser Press, and NME is a shell of its former glory, there are still plenty of music coverage sources superior to RS: Mojo, Paste, Uncut, Q, Word, the music issue of Oxford Magazine. Not to mention all the music websites out there.

RS is an antiquated, outmoded has-been and the fact that they're the self-elected gatekeepers of the rock n roll kingdom is a joke.

[Jahfin]

I think I got my latest subscription to Rolling Stone for free when I ordered a ticket through Ticketmaster otherwise I'm sure I wouldn't go out of my way to subscribe to it. Since I enjoy keeping up with and reading about music, I couldn't turn it down. And yes, their primary focus has always been music but they've also always delved into other areas including politics and pop culture, that goes all the way back to their very first issues that were printed on newsprint. As for them being the "gatekeepers of rock n' roll", I don't necessarily agree with that even though Jann Wenner obviously plays a very substantial role as to who is and who isn't inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame. If someone sees Rolling Stone magazine itself as "gatekeepers" then it is more likely that they've cast those aspersions onto the magazine themselves. Personally, I'm fully capable of making up my own mind about what I do and don't like, I don't need Rolling Stone (or any other magazine, blog, website, etc.) to make up my mind for me. Since I'm someone that likes to keep up with music, I do pay attention to a great deal of their articles, just as I do with some of the other magazines you mentioned but I don't consider just one of them to be the be all and end all when it comes to music journalism. Mojo has some great writing but more often than not, they're a very backward looking magazine as the majority of their feature articles are about past events or artists. That may make for some great reading but it does very little to inform me about what's going on in the music world at present.

[Jahfin]

As if we needed any further proof that Gene Simmons is a fucking idiot, here's a quote from the previous Rolling Stone article I posted a link to where he's whining about Kiss not being inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame:

"In all seriousness for the fans, for something to be called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is such an insult to Madonna, Blondie,

and Tone Loc. Who the fuck knows what other disco act is in there? It's an insult to them because they don't get to be in the 'Dance Hall of Fame,' because that's what they do," Simons says. "They're legitimate dance, disco artists. They don't belong in rock and roll."

...and quote from a current Rolling Stone article where he's pushing a restaurant he recently opened:

Simmons connected the populism of his restaurant with everything from disco's inclusion in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame ("What an insult to the memory of Little Richard and Chuck Berry to have disco artists who don't write their own songs and play their own instruments. It's a sham to have Grandmaster Flash and Disco Bob and MC Criminal in there") to Kurt Cobain's suicide ("I say this respectfully to him – 'fuck off'") to, well, pretty much any music made after 1990 other than Katy Perry ("I love her voice") and Madonna ("a true rock star").

So in one breath, Madonna's part of what's wrong with the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame because she's a "disco artist". In the next, she's "a true rock star".

[Rock Historian]

I just happen to read the last few post, so my comment is directed there.

1) Kiss- deserve to be nominated for best merchandising rock act....that's it! (But NOT the R&R HOF)

Musically, a big thumbs down. Come on people, there music was average at best.

Would they really have reached their initial status without the make-up? Don't think so.

I'm proud too say, I don't own one Kiss record.

2) Rush- IMO is a great, talented and underrated band. As they said in their latest DVD release (Beyond A lighted Stage),

they are considered the "biggest underground rock band". Meaning that they never reached superstar status

but retained a massive underground fanbase. The reason they are considered "nerdy" is because the lyrics were

not appealing to everyone. Some found them hard to relate to for this matter. Yet there is no denying the talent

and songwritting ability. As "complicated" as their music is, they still managed to breakthrough to the mainstream

with Permenant Waves and Moving Pictures, which enabled them to reach their height of popularity.

When you hear a Rush song, you KNOW it's Rush. They have a unique sound. Wheather it's the voice,

(some love/some hate) the Bass, or Drums- it's a sound of it's own. Love em' or hate em..there a great

band that has influenced thousands.

[Anjin-san]

The R&R hall of fame is like the Oscars,totally irrelevant..

[dazedcat]

I know people here like Kiss so I'll tread lightly. I agree with the last two posts, as a merchandising machine Kiss are great..........and the R n R Hall of Fame is a farce of an institution.

Gene Simmons is entertaining though, if you like bluster and stupidity.

[Jahfin]

If Gene Simmons keeps on running his mouth I doubt they'll ever get in and for good reason. That said, I they are (or were) deserving of the honor on influence alone, which is the chief criteria for induction. It doesn't have anything to do with an artists' musical abilities (or lack thereof).