Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

crash_override · 08-06-2009, 11:58 AM

I voted no, they just don't have the kind of catalouge worthy of the Hall of Fame. Plus their lack of success in the US, normally results in most Americans knowing them as another 90's alternative band. They just don't stand out. An ambitious no from me.

boo boo · 08-06-2009, 12:16 PM

I voted for them because I like them, why cant everyone just vote based on that?

Mojo · 08-06-2009, 12:33 PM

I'm fairly sure we've had arguments over the inconsistent criteria in about 100 of the 190 pages in this thread. Looks like thats just the way it's gonna go down really. If we factor in things like impact, influence, success etc then it isnt OUR Hall of Fame anymore, which is exactly what it should be.

But whatever, it ain't gonna change now.

crash_override · 08-06-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I voted for them because I like them, why cant everyone just vote based on that?

I voted no because I don't like them. Like I said, they just don't stand out to me.

S. Flavious Mercurius · 08-06-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Because Blur are awesome and Oasis are horrible?

I think that might have something to do with it.

That's so absurd, Oasis is so much more relevant in America and I like them way better and I'm sure the average person does.

Plus Blur is pretty average compared to the bands already inducted

Akira · 08-06-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S. Flavious Mercurius

That's so absurd, Oasis is so much more relevant in America and I like them way better and I'm sure the average person does.

Plus Blur is pretty average compared to the bands already inducted

No offense but F*CK AMERICA AND THE BUBBLE YOU LIVE IN.

S. Flavious Mercurius · 08-06-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToeAndno

Why not?

Plus, the nominations aren't done in any set order.

I was more questioning the nomination, some really stinkers (By hof standards) coming through here lately.

S. Flavious Mercurius · 08-06-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToeAndno

No offense but F*CK AMERICA AND THE BUBBLE YOU LIVE IN.

Lots of offense intended here, Fuck you too.

Nothing to do with me being in a bubble, go back to Nirvana nomination and watch all the Brits knocking them for being irrelvent across the pond. My favorite bands are the Who and Zeppelin, I'm not in a bubble.

crash_override · 08-06-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToeAndno

No offense but F*CK AMERICA AND THE BUBBLE YOU LIVE IN.

That doesn't change the fact that both bands suck equally and neither deserve to be in.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 08-06-2009, 01:23 PM

I don't think we should argue over why we vote yes or no. Truth be told if we really like somebody then we are going to vote Yes, no matter what influence, impact, whatever, they may have had.

If we really don't like somebody, than we are going to vote No. I've seen people change their tactics back and forth on this thread, and it all has to do with them wanting who they like to get it.

Whether you personally decide to vote Yes or No is up to you. There is no standard to go on. You could sit there and tell me "I'm voting NO because they didn't have a very big impact" but what you are really saying is "I'm voting NO because I don't like them".

View Poll Results: Does John Peel deserve to make the Hall of Fame?
Yes	11	91.67%
No	1	8.33%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

08-06-2009, 12:33 PM	#1893 (permalink)
Mojo Melancholia Eternally Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: England Posts: 5,018	I'm fairly sure we've had arguments over the inconsistent criteria in about 100 of the 190 pages in this thread. Looks like thats just the way it's gonna go down really. If we factor in things like impact, influence, success etc then it isnt OUR Hall of Fame anymore, which is exactly what it should be. But whatever, it ain't gonna change now. __________________ Last.FM \| Echoes and Dust

08-06-2009, 01:23 PM	#1900 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	I don't think we should argue over why we vote yes or no. Truth be told if we really like somebody then we are going to vote Yes, no matter what influence, impact, whatever, they may have had. If we really don't like somebody, than we are going to vote No. I've seen people change their tactics back and forth on this thread, and it all has to do with them wanting who they like to get it. Whether you personally decide to vote Yes or No is up to you. There is no standard to go on. You could sit there and tell me "I'm voting NO because they didn't have a very big impact" but what you are really saying is "I'm voting NO because I don't like them".