Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

[jackhammer]

which one?

[Son of JayJamJah]

I cleared it all up. Sorry Les has a quick trigger.

[sleepy jack]

I think this constant bitching about the longevity of Joy Division is ridiculous. The fact they achieved all they did with only two albums says quite a bit. Besides most classic rock bands released like a few classic albums then release 30 years of **** following it and no one ever questions their legendary status. Oh and New Order kicked ass so its fairly obvious that if Ian had lived and they'd released a third album they wouldn't have been burnt up or washed out or anything.

[Son of JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I think this constant bitching about the longevity of Joy Division is ridiculous. The fact they achieved all they did with only two albums says quite a bit. Besides most classic rock bands released like a few classic albums then release 30 years of **** following it and no one ever questions their legendary status. Oh and New Order kicked ass so its fairly obvious that if Ian had lived and they'd released a third album they wouldn't have been burnt up or washed out or anything.

It's a legitimate question Ethey Jack. And I think the fact that even though they only released two albums they are in consideration and with all probability will be nominated says a lot about the respect people have for those two albums.

Plus anyone that votes against Zeppelin for any hall of fame has no ground to stand on when questioning peoples personal preferences as determining factors\influences when voting.

[WaspStar]

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

My biggest question is: ARE TWO ALBUMS ENOUGH TO GET YOU IN?

Regardless of one's feelings on a band, I don't think the quantity of their output should be a factor. Some of the best bands hvae only released a handful of albums. If the VU had broken up after their first album, they'd still be considered one of the best bands of the 60's, and rightfully so.

As an example, in the end, the only Stones albums that I care about are Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed. My thoughts on the band wouldn't really be changed if those were the only albums they made.

[Son of JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by WaspStar

Regardless of one's feelings on a band, I don't think the quantity of their output should be a factor. Some of the best bands hvae only released a handful of albums. If the VU had broken up after their first album, they'd still be considered one of the best bands of the 60's, and rightfully so.

As an example, in the end, the only Stones albums that I care about are Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed. My thoughts on the band wouldn't really be changed if those were the only albums they made.

I disagree.

Would you have the same feelings if it were Led Zeppelin and not Joy Division that released just two albums and was being questioned here?

If a band makes eight, ten or one hundred very good albums it's more impressive then one that releases two or three. I agree you should not exclude a band based on quantity or lack there of and that releasing 15 albums doesn't mean any of them are any good. But longevity has to be a factor, it's a fact of life so I don't see how it can't be a factor.

[jackhammer]

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

^ If I quoted posts for my signature, i'd use this one

My biggest question is: ARE TWO ALBUMS ENOUGH TO GET YOU IN?

Are you saying that it is an invalid post? If so I am very dissapointed. In the UK we heard many prototypes of zep before our American friends had heard of them. Cream, John Mayall, Blind Faith, Fleetwood Mac, Rory Gallacher, Jeff Beck were all making music that shared many attributes with Zeppelin at that time and I prefer each and everyone to Zep. Zeppelin are a blues rock band that managed to capture the zeitgeist and achieve massive success. They were great at what they did. Unfortunately what they did was in many ways old hat in the UK.

"Yeah but they achieved massive success and sold so many albums"...so did MJ, Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis. Does'nt mean you are better than everyone else.

Joy Division have created a similar reverence to Zeppelin and it only took two albums to achieve this.

[Son of JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Are you saying that it is an invalid post? If so I am very dissapointed. In the UK we heard many prototypes of zep before our American friends had heard of them. Cream, John Mayall, Blind Faith, Fleetwood Mac, Rory Gallacher, Jeff Beck were all making music that shared many attributes with Zeppelin at that time and I prefer each and everyone to Zep. Zeppelin are a blues rock band that managed to capture the zeitgeist and achieve massive success. They were great at what they did. Unfortunately what they did was in many ways old hat in the UK.

"Yeah but they achieved massive success and sold so many albums"...so did MJ, Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis. Does'nt mean you are better than everyone else.

Joy Division have created a similar reverence to Zeppelin and it only took two albums to achieve this.

Not at all, I would quote it as an homage, I have seen what your talking about though, should have clarified. I agree 100% with everything in said post.

But in response to what you said now, all personal preferences and technicalities aside, Led Zeppelin is the total package. The acts you mentioned are similar but not on Zeppelin's level. Critically acclaimed in their time, and even more so now. Commercially one the ten best selling artists ever worldwide, tops in the HArd rock genre ever. The second most influential (regardless of quality) band (behind the Beatles) on future generations ever.

Look I rarely get into this discussion because it frustrates me but, Led Zeppelin live is unlike anything else I have ever experienced in music, and there are not many who saw those shows from 1970-1975 that would argue or have a differing opinion. It wasn't because they were the first to as another poster put it "F*** the S*** out of the Blues" or wrote the best songs or played the best type of music, it was because they did what they did in a way that spoke to millions and millions of people, no one else has to like it, enough people already do to make the point.

[jackhammer]

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

Not at all, I would quote it as an homage, I have seen what your talking about though, should have clarified. I agree 100% with everything in said post.

But in response to what you said now, all personal preferences and technicalities aside, Led Zeppelin is the total package. The acts you mentioned are similar but not on Zeppelin's level. Critically acclaimed in their time, and even more so now. Commercially one the ten best selling artists ever worldwide, tops in the HArd rock genre ever. The second most influential (regardless of quality) band (behind the Beatles) on future generations ever.

Look I rarely get into this discussion because it frustrates me but, Led Zeppelin live is unlike anything else I have ever experienced in music, and there are not many who saw those shows from 1970-1975 that would argue or have a differing opinion. It wasn't because they were the first to as another poster put it "F*** the S*** out of the Blues" or wrote the best songs or played the best type of music, it was because they did what they did in a way that spoke to millions and millions of people, no one else has to like it, enough people already do to make the point.

Unfortunately I never seen them live and I utterly appreciate their contribution. However it was still a culmination of said bands and using that criteria we could say that they were the boyzone of the day-giving people what they wanted! Analysing what was popular and turning it to their advantage. I hate them more and more lol.

Back onto comparisons who sounded like Joy Division at that time? What was the motive to make music? This criteria alone should ensure a safe passage to the hall of fame. quite unlike a bunch of Blues musicians who decided to mix Sex and music and create the monster that is 'Black Dog'

[Son of JayJamJah]

I'll ignore the most recent offenses against Zeppelin and shift the attention to Joy Division as it should be here.

Just because something is different or unique does not mean it's good. I am not trying to say Joy Division should be excluded, I am just offering counter point here.

I listen to a song like "Twenty Four Hours" and hear sort of average version of the Cure with an edge that may or may not be premeditated. Now there is no doubt they were innovators and are probably as responsible as anyone for the Grunge and Alternative rock movements of the 1990's showing their range of influence long after Curtis expired. But they don't get credit from me for the work of other bands whose music I can relate to and like.

Here are my main gripes with the Music

It can be boring as I mentioned slow and methodical without any defining instrumental performance to cling to. I'll listen to substance and find myself almost ignoring the music.

I find the vocals annoying at times and far from astounding technically. Chalk it up to I just don't get it, its creative and it fits the music but I don't relate and thus I don't get the appeal.

Even in songs I tend to like "Glass" for example, there are moments (such as when Curtis' vocals begin in this song) where I cringe because the music just misses in my opinion. Too inconsistent and experimental, not enough nuts and bolts of music for me.

All that said I am probably going to vote yes because I think they represent a really smart and thoughtful fan base here on MB.