Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. Barber Shop Talk
  3. Rock n Roll Hall of Fame Class

Rock n Roll Hall of Fame Class

Barber Shop Talk
98 12 8.8k
  • ballpeenB ballpeen

    The Rock Hall is nearing joke....Hall and Oates maker it yet Chicago and Bad Compamy don't??

    Shoot....even Cat Stevens can make it yet Chicago....a groundbreaking band, or Bad Company with the greatest voice in Rock history, can't?

    Joke.......move it out of Cleveland. It isn't worthy of the ground.

    The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #30

    @ballpeen said:

    The Rock Hall is nearing joke....Hall and Oates maker it yet Chicago and Bad Compamy don't??

    Shoot....even Cat Stevens can make it yet Chicago....a groundbreaking band, or Bad Company with the greatest voice in Rock history, can't?

    Joke.......move it out of Cleveland. It isn't worthy of the ground.

    The greatest voice in rock history? Are you high? That's not even up for debate and it certainly wasn't Paul Rodgers. That's ridiculous. No one...no one would say Paul Rodgers had a better voice than Freddie Mercury.

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
    The GipperT 1 Reply
  • ballpeenB ballpeen

    The Rock Hall is nearing joke....Hall and Oates maker it yet Chicago and Bad Compamy don't??

    Shoot....even Cat Stevens can make it yet Chicago....a groundbreaking band, or Bad Company with the greatest voice in Rock history, can't?

    Joke.......move it out of Cleveland. It isn't worthy of the ground.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #31

    @ballpeen said:

    The Rock Hall is nearing joke....Hall and Oates maker it yet Chicago and Bad Compamy don't??

    Shoot....even Cat Stevens can make it yet Chicago....a groundbreaking band, or Bad Company with the greatest voice in Rock history, can't?

    Joke.......move it out of Cleveland. It isn't worthy of the ground.

    Again, all a matter of personal taste, clearly.

    I was never a Chicago fan.....so I am ambivalent about them not being in there. Blood, Sweat, and Tears, to me were a similar...better, earlier act.

    I liked Bad Company....but they were not....as you say "groundbreaking". The principals of that band were in other bands that perhaps better consideration: Free with Paul Rodgers, Mott the Hoople with Mick Ralphs.

  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid

    @ballpeen said:

    The Rock Hall is nearing joke....Hall and Oates maker it yet Chicago and Bad Compamy don't??

    Shoot....even Cat Stevens can make it yet Chicago....a groundbreaking band, or Bad Company with the greatest voice in Rock history, can't?

    Joke.......move it out of Cleveland. It isn't worthy of the ground.

    The greatest voice in rock history? Are you high? That's not even up for debate and it certainly wasn't Paul Rodgers. That's ridiculous. No one...no one would say Paul Rodgers had a better voice than Freddie Mercury.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #32

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    The greatest voice in rock history? Are you high? That's not even up for debate and it certainly wasn't Paul Rodgers. That's ridiculous. No one...no one would say Paul Rodgers had a better voice than Freddie Mercury.

    Roy Orbison? any number of others. That is also very much a matter of personal taste.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    The greatest voice in rock history? Are you high? That's not even up for debate and it certainly wasn't Paul Rodgers. That's ridiculous. No one...no one would say Paul Rodgers had a better voice than Freddie Mercury.

    Roy Orbison? any number of others. That is also very much a matter of personal taste.

    The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #33

    @the-gipper said:

    Roy Orbison? any number of others. That is also very much a matter of personal taste.

    Do you consider Paul rodgers to have a better voice than Freddie Mercury?

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid

    @the-gipper said:

    Roy Orbison? any number of others. That is also very much a matter of personal taste.

    Do you consider Paul rodgers to have a better voice than Freddie Mercury?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #34

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Do you consider Paul rodgers to have a better voice than Freddie Mercury?

    No, not me personally. But others may. Recall that Queen got Rodgers to sing with them for a while to mimic Freddie.

  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #35

    Not to mimic Freddie. Just to make money. Nobody can mimic Freddie. They also split with rogers btw and got Adam Lambert.

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
    The GipperT 1 Reply
  • F FairHooker11 wrote on
    #36

    I cannot understand why Peter Gabriel has shown indifference to his earlier days with Genesis?

    It was not from a lack of effort on the part of the group to include Gabriel with them on what was thier last tour in 2007, and he turned it down.....

    I liked the early "new" group without Gabriel actually, with Collins as the front guy - but apart from his costume get ups on stage - the guy can really sing.

  • F FairHooker11

    I cannot understand why Peter Gabriel has shown indifference to his earlier days with Genesis?

    It was not from a lack of effort on the part of the group to include Gabriel with them on what was thier last tour in 2007, and he turned it down.....

    I liked the early "new" group without Gabriel actually, with Collins as the front guy - but apart from his costume get ups on stage - the guy can really sing.

    gftChrisG gftChris wrote on
    #37

    @fairhooker11 said:

    I cannot understand why Peter Gabriel has shown indifference to his earlier days with Genesis?

    It was not from a lack of effort on the part of the group to include Gabriel with them on what was thier last tour in 2007, and he turned it down.....

    I liked the early "new" group without Gabriel actually, with Collins as the front guy - but apart from his costume get ups on stage - the guy can really sing.

    I doubt you guys got the ad in the states because it's for a british band, but since we're talking Genesis, you might like this quite surreal commercial (and if not, then just the music).

    F 1 Reply
  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid

    Not to mimic Freddie. Just to make money. Nobody can mimic Freddie. They also split with rogers btw and got Adam Lambert.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #38

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Not to mimic Freddie. Just to make money. Nobody can mimic Freddie. They also split with rogers btw and got Adam Lambert.

    Lambert comes/came as close to Mercury as anyone could.....a great voice. And a flamethrower as well.

  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #39

    I'll agree Lambert has a great voice but he's no Freddie mercury. All one needs to do is watch live aid 85 and see how Freddie has the entire crowd eating out of his hand on radio Gaga to know this guy was a special once in a lifetime talent. Only Michael Jackson compares to mercury in my book.

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    @fairhooker11 said:

    I cannot understand why Peter Gabriel has shown indifference to his earlier days with Genesis?

    It was not from a lack of effort on the part of the group to include Gabriel with them on what was thier last tour in 2007, and he turned it down.....

    I liked the early "new" group without Gabriel actually, with Collins as the front guy - but apart from his costume get ups on stage - the guy can really sing.

    I doubt you guys got the ad in the states because it's for a british band, but since we're talking Genesis, you might like this quite surreal commercial (and if not, then just the music).

    F FairHooker11 wrote on
    #40

    @gftchris said:

    I doubt you guys got the ad in the states because it's for a british band, but since we're talking Genesis, you might like this quite surreal commercial (and if not, then just the music).

    but that's Collins stuff...

  • W Westside Steve wrote on
    #41

    I won't get into any matters of taste but I never thought Linda Ronstadt was that important or influential. Madonna certainly was and is. I would also think that Todd Rundgren has made enough of an impact on the industry to be included.

    WSS

    www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons
    The GipperT Bob806B 2 Replies
  • W Westside Steve

    I won't get into any matters of taste but I never thought Linda Ronstadt was that important or influential. Madonna certainly was and is. I would also think that Todd Rundgren has made enough of an impact on the industry to be included.

    WSS

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #42

    @westside-steve said:

    I won't get into any matters of taste but I never thought Linda Ronstadt was that important or influential. Madonna certainly was and is. I would also think that Todd Rundgren has made enough of an impact on the industry to be included.

    WSS

    Steve, you know full well that they are not probably going to let a RRHOF class go by and not include women/minorities.

    So she was not competing with every other musician out there, only with the other women musicians out there for the female slot.

    So, from that stand point, she was probably a somewhat valid choice....if the RRHOF is going to go the politically correct route.

    Other females that could have been considered:

    Karen Carpenter/The Carpenters

    Connie Francis

    Annie Lennox/The Eurythmics

    Janet Jackson

    Suzi Quatro

    Whitney Houston

    Patsy Cline

    Joan Baez

    Nina Simone

    Then you get into the issue of what is "Rock n Roll" . Barbara Streisand ain't in.....and she is one of the best, most popular, biggest selling artists (male or female) of all time.

  • W Westside Steve

    I won't get into any matters of taste but I never thought Linda Ronstadt was that important or influential. Madonna certainly was and is. I would also think that Todd Rundgren has made enough of an impact on the industry to be included.

    WSS

    Bob806B Bob806 wrote on
    #43

    @westside-steve said:

    I won't get into any matters of taste but I never thought Linda Ronstadt was that important or influential. Madonna certainly was and is. I would also think that Todd Rundgren has made enough of an impact on the industry to be included.

    WSS

    Didn't Todd Rundgren play/compose every instrument on "A Wizard/A True Star?" If that's true, I bet he's the only musician to do something like that ever.

    FYI...I like Paul Rogers over Freddy Mercury, but maybe Jim Morrison had a better voice than either of those 2.

    Karlis Missed
  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #44

    Jim was a crooner. I don't think you could compare him to either Rodgers or Mercury. He didn't have the range. A better comparison might be the guys he undoubtably listened to as a kid. He did have a memorable voice. I can't agree or fathom anyone thinking Rodgers has a better voice than Mercury but as Steve says, its art. I might not be able to imagine what anyone sees in Jackson Pollock but theres a huge Pollock hanging in the lobby at MOMA so somebody must think something of him

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid

    Jim was a crooner. I don't think you could compare him to either Rodgers or Mercury. He didn't have the range. A better comparison might be the guys he undoubtably listened to as a kid. He did have a memorable voice. I can't agree or fathom anyone thinking Rodgers has a better voice than Mercury but as Steve says, its art. I might not be able to imagine what anyone sees in Jackson Pollock but theres a huge Pollock hanging in the lobby at MOMA so somebody must think something of him

    gftChrisG gftChris wrote on
    #45

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Jim was a crooner. I don't think you could compare him to either Rodgers or Mercury. He didn't have the range. A better comparison might be the guys he undoubtably listened to as a kid. He did have a memorable voice. I can't agree or fathom anyone thinking Rodgers has a better voice than Mercury but as Steve says, its art. I might not be able to imagine what anyone sees in Jackson Pollock but theres a huge Pollock hanging in the lobby at MOMA so somebody must think something of him

    It's all a load of pollocks 😉

    I'm yet to find someone that matches freddy mercury's talent for singing, songwriting, music and showmanship all in one. There might be a better singer, or a better showman, but freddy had it all and was at or near the top in them all.

    The GipperT The Cysko KidT 2 Replies
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Jim was a crooner. I don't think you could compare him to either Rodgers or Mercury. He didn't have the range. A better comparison might be the guys he undoubtably listened to as a kid. He did have a memorable voice. I can't agree or fathom anyone thinking Rodgers has a better voice than Mercury but as Steve says, its art. I might not be able to imagine what anyone sees in Jackson Pollock but theres a huge Pollock hanging in the lobby at MOMA so somebody must think something of him

    It's all a load of pollocks 😉

    I'm yet to find someone that matches freddy mercury's talent for singing, songwriting, music and showmanship all in one. There might be a better singer, or a better showman, but freddy had it all and was at or near the top in them all.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #46

    @gftchris said:

    It's all a load of pollocks 😉

    I'm yet to find someone that matches freddy mercury's talent for singing, songwriting, music and showmanship all in one. There might be a better singer, or a better showman, but freddy had it all and was at or near the top in them all.

    Maybe....Elvis? (though I don't know if Elvis wrote any of his songs)

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @gftchris said:

    It's all a load of pollocks 😉

    I'm yet to find someone that matches freddy mercury's talent for singing, songwriting, music and showmanship all in one. There might be a better singer, or a better showman, but freddy had it all and was at or near the top in them all.

    Maybe....Elvis? (though I don't know if Elvis wrote any of his songs)

    gftChrisG gftChris wrote on
    #47

    @the-gipper said:

    Maybe....Elvis? (though I don't know if Elvis wrote any of his songs)

    I don't think Elvis was as skilled a musician as freddy, in terms of instruments, but I'll admit I don't know too much about him.

  • gftChrisG gftChris

    @the-gipper said:

    Maybe....Elvis? (though I don't know if Elvis wrote any of his songs)

    I don't think Elvis was as skilled a musician as freddy, in terms of instruments, but I'll admit I don't know too much about him.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #48

    @gftchris said:

    I don't think Elvis was as skilled a musician as freddy, in terms of instruments, but I'll admit I don't know too much about him.

    Elvis played guitar and piano. What else would you like him to play?

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @gftchris said:

    I don't think Elvis was as skilled a musician as freddy, in terms of instruments, but I'll admit I don't know too much about him.

    Elvis played guitar and piano. What else would you like him to play?

    gftChrisG gftChris wrote on
    #49

    @the-gipper said:

    Elvis played guitar and piano. What else would you like him to play?

    Harpsichord, clarinet and triangle.

    I just get the impression that FM was one of those guys who could just pick up and play any kind of instrument you gave him, and in a week be at a very high level.

Log in to reply