you would be relatively 25% cooler if you could actually spell out the entire word "approximately". I kid though, I kid.
I wouldn't say Mexican food is better, a lot of it (as prepared commercially) hardly qualifies as food. That said, it's certainly a better complement to binge drinking than Irish food, though I'd rather have Irish breakfast the next day than huevos rancheros.
I've had this song stuck in my head for a week. I've been singing this song all night. Oh and "Slow Motion" goes really well with the Cat Daddy. Yes, I did break it out tonight. I'm pretty sure seeing a girl accompanying herself doing the cat daddy while rapping on the street was probably the best thing everyone of Williamsburg has ever seen.
Apparently I have a date on Tuesday with the most adorable hipster chick. Pics are obviously related. God she's cute.
I know if I were said hipster I wouldn't appreciate my picture being put up on a random internet forum.
Yeah, it was ok. It would have been better if any of the inductees actually, you know, belonged in the rock and roll hall of fame.
Though you are being snarky (per your usual), you're actually closer to the truth than you probably intended. From the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame website: It's a subjective measure. Before you ask, an objective measure would be 'records sold' or 'awards won' or something definitive. So since it's subjective, there's no absolute right or wrong answer. Although I'll use the following for a guidepost: Beatles definitely in, Milli Vanilli definitely not in. RHCP is a good band, but hardly contributed to the 'development' of rock and roll. Perpetuation? Ok, that sounds like (to me) a consistent career of making great albums. RHCP IS a good band. Maybe even a great one. But one great album? Yeah, doesn't get there for me. 'Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magic' is a great rock album. You could make an argument that 'One Hot Minute' is a very good album. Beyond that? Some good albums, some so-so albums, some bad albums. For me, longevity alone doesn't get you there. Don't get me wrong, I love RHCP, always have. But they had a tight window of great material and years of critics and fans hoping they could reclaim it, which they really haven't. Hall of Fame worthy? I think not. Same with Guns and Roses. I LOVE GnR. Always have, but one really great album, 'Appetite,' and a couple of good albums 'Illusion I and II' doesn't get you there in my book. To me, the Hall of Fame should be the absolute best and most important bands. Frankly, because they induct people every year, I think they really stretch the stated criteria to have inductees. They should have inductions once every five years, that way, you make sure that the bands/artists that are in for performance really belong there. I like a lot of bands in the HoF, but just because I like them, or love them, doesn't mean that I objectively believe they belong there. This year's inductees are great examples of bands I love, but wouldn't ever induct with their current catalogues.
I'm of the opinion that bands like No Doubt (before they broke up), RHCP and U2 (yeah, I went there) are the epitomes of "mediocre but hung in there." None are great, but they've been around for more than two decades so they get accolades. Plus, one thing that the concert illustrated well is that having such longevity usually means you put on a KILLER live performance. Just look at Green Day; the poster boys for post-grunge forgettable rock, and they've hung in there, produced albums true to themselves, and by Billie Joe's own admission can play 30 seconds of any song in any genre that the crowd calls out. Does that make them great? No. But they're very entertaining. And you can't tell me GNR doesn't belong there. To me, they define rock. That's due in part to my age, but no one can deny how important Appetite for Destruction is/was.
Oh, and if induction should be dictated by tangible measures, like records sold, doesn't that make it even more of a silly popularity contest? What about musicians that had a very limited amount of success themselves, but served to inspire the big guys who sold 50 million? By those metrics, Robert Johnson or Sonic Youth never get in, but who can deny their influence?
Couldn't agree more. I don't think it should be based on records sold, my only point was since it's not, it's a subjective measure, not an objective one. Totally agree with Robert Johnson, one of the biggest influences on rock (though he was a blues artist). Sonic Youth? I'd argue that one, but I'll leave that be. I agree with your overall point. EDIT: GnR was, by their own words, an Aerosmith knock off band. In fact, they had to remove the Aerosmith patches from their leather jackets before their first gigs. Appetite was a great album, but other bands made the same album (Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Deep Purple) years before. Did Appetite breath new life into rock? I guess, but there were a lot of hard rock bands around that were very good. The difference? GnR's image as 'bad boys' - which was not the norm in '86 for bands. But the music? Nothing new. Something great, however.
The whole point of a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is kind of ridiculous because you are attempting to objectively classify something that is impossible to be objective about. Music is completely a matter of taste, and if we can all agree that metrics like album sales shouldn't be the sole criteria, well, then what can we measure worthiness by? Critical acclaim? Longevity? Innovation? Influence? Quality of live shows? From my perspective of what makes a Hall of Fame band (while admitting the whole concept is stupid) the RHCP seem to be a good example of a band that isn't Led Zeppelin or the Beatles but still deserves to be inducted. First, they have a sound unique to them. Very few bands are similar, and they have achieved a great deal of success with that sound. They've also achieved critical acclaim for most of their albums, which spanned three decades. Blood Sugar Sex Magik is a definitive album of the 90's. Californication was EVERYWHERE when it was released. And they've continued since then to produce great albums and stay relevant. They are also great live. I understand you might not have liked RHCP but I completely disagree about your view on longevity and quality albums aside from Blood Sugar Sex Magik. But that's beside the points. If we are going to have opinions about if a band deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, we have to be as objective as possible and put aside personal taste. I hate U2, but it would insane to think they objectively don't belong in the Hall of Fame. RHCP have always been present in pop culture throughout the 90's and 2000's. You always knew when they dropped an album, they were well-reviewed, and they sold out arenas for twenty plus years. I think they definitely belong. I think the best solution for the Hall of Fame is to do it based on Bill Simmons' pyramid idea. Bands like the Beatles are the no-brainers, top of the class. RHCP get in, but at a lower level. Seems like a fair compromise.