What does this mean? Why would that say more about a band than their music? Why would this be criteria not to put them in?

If thats criteria for not putting them in, then 95% of bands arent gonna go in.

Well, what it means is that a whole hell of a lot of people knew their songs, even though it wasn't exclusively a Queen gig, and it's widely accepted that they more or less became the headlining act there.

No of course it's not a reason not to put them in: I've already explained that I won't be doing that. It's more a reaction to UH's post that their albums aren't that great --- which they may not be --- but they're certainly appreciated, as shown by that example.

That's all I was saying.

But just in case there's any ambiguity or doubt:
Queen will not be going into Room 101.

I see the angle you're coming at it from. It still seems that popularity is reason enough for a band anyone puts forward not to go in though.

They should go in there for Brian May's hair alone.

I think in fairness they must have something about them that a lot of people don't like. I would put Westlife or Boyzone in, but could I do that just on my own dislike of them? Perhaps not, but for tackling Ol' Blue Eyes' classics... maybe....

Just a footnote: don't bother nominating any of the bands I like, as since I have final say you won't be successful in putting Springsteen, Waits, Marillion or any of my other faves in. ;)

And now, the moment you'll all (three of you) been waiting for...

I like the idea of these acoustic guys'n'girls going in, but then again, is it their fault that people often worship them? And aren't they just playing music anyway? Should they be penalised for that? Maybe, but I'll have to think more on that, for a possible return to that topic.

For now, I think Urban's idea of these seventies rock fans who think only their music is good get the nod. Apart from the fact that I despise elitism and close-mindedness in music, and try to expose myself (not literally!) to as many genres/sub-genres as I can outside what I usually listen to, I don't believe it's fair for one group to declare their music great and all the rest ****e. It shows a lack of tolerance, and a lack of understanding of other music genres.

As I found out and demonstrated with my recent investigation into the music of boybands, you can't slag something off unless/until you know enough about them. It's easy to criticise (fun, too!) but you need to criticise, if at all, with an informed mind. And sometimes when you make the effort to look a little deeper, scratch beneath the surface as it were, you find that there's something there after all.

So, for close-mindedness and intolerance, and a general air of superiority that they neither deserve nor fully understand, "decrepit 70s classic rock fans with their whole 'Disco Sucks' attitude" are the first ones to go into Room 101!

http://www.trollheart.com/doorclose.jpg

My nomination isn't to throw the acoustic musicians in, it's to throw in the idea that that kind of music is somehow more "real" than other kinds.

Okay, I can see your point, however I haven't really encountered this attitude, so perhaps you may need to expand on it so that I understand fully.

Are you talking about the trend started by MTV with their "Unplugged" series, or is it only musicians who do acoustic and nothing else? I always found that an artiste playing acoustically shows they don't rely heavily on tech and effects to make their music, and that certainly does make it more, as you say, honest, and real.

So is it artistes who only play acoustic, and thus get lauded by their fans, or have my fingers lost their tentative grip on the ledge of understanding and have I gone hurtling into the chasm of confusion here?

Sorry if I seem to be obtuse, but I really don't get the concept you're describing. Maybe some examples?

The best way I can describe what I'm talking about is with the sentence I've bolded. That's basically the idea that I'm referring to, this notion that music is somehow more "real" or more emotional if it is subdued and acoustic. It's a bizarre sonic prejudice many people seem to have, but there really is no basis for it.

But there is, isn't there? The worst band in the world can be made sound great with the right technology (look at Milli Vanilli and Frankie Goes to Hollywood, for example, and for a great satire on this the Simpsons episode where all the local kids are made into a boyband, even though none of them can sing --- "God bless NASA!"), but if you can really play, you shouldn't have to rely on all that tech. It should be as simple as guitar, chair, voice, audience, and away you go.

I'm sure most of you who can play began that way, acoustically, so surely going back to it for musicians is just their way of showing they haven't lost touch with their roots, aren't relying on technology to "make" or "enhance" their sound, and are still in touch with what first made them pick up a guitar, sit at a piano or whatever?

Would you not agree with that?