Maybe Someone Should Step Up . . .

 . . . and do this thing correctly. Because the people (Rolling Stone Magazine, basically) who run the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are clearly in some distant, fog-shrouded world of their own. Sure, they've inducted many artists who, without question, deserve to be there, but there are a few you could argue probably shouldn't be - or least shouldn't be in there ahead of some who should have been inducted long ago. And other crazy stuff, like the fact Brian Epstein is only just now making it as an inductee in the non-performers category (class of 2014). Hello RRHOF!!! He probably should have been brought in the same year, or shortly thereafter, as The Beatles, for crying out loud . . .

So here are the basic rules for performers, directly from the Hall's website: 

Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.  

The Foundation's nominating committee selects nominees each year in the Performer category. Ballots are then sent to an international voting body of more than 600 artists, historians and members of the music industry.

So let's take a few moments and look at a couple of examples. Deep Purple has been eligible for something like 21 years, and they have been nominated twice; Metallica was inducted in 2009 in their first or second year of eligibility. With lineup changes both bands have been around for years, Deep Purple forming in 1968 while Metallica formed in 1981, and each have sold over 100 million records. Now remember the rule above about "influence and significance of the artists' contributions?" I can almost guarantee that the two lead guitarists who have played with Metallica, at some point in their learning process, just had to learn that very famous riff from Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water." And to this day it is a riff a lot of guitarists still want to learn when they start playing electric guitar. If that one riff from Richie Blackmore isn't an "influence on the development and perpetuation of rock and roll," I just don't know how else to define it. Though I don't have any evidence, I'd also be willing to bet that when the guys in Metallica were starting out playing in cover bands, they probably banged out a little Deep Purple along the way. Metallica in the Rock and Roll Hall before Deep Purple? The clear verdict can only be a emphatic "No!"

The Moody Blues have been recording and performing since 1967, have 13 top 40 hits, and have sold tens of millions of records. They have been eligible for the RRHOF for 25 years and have yet to be nominated. Not even once. Blondie, on the other hand, has sold about half as many records and were inducted in 2006 on their first nomination after just four years of eligibility. Yes, that Blondie, the same new wave/punk band whose biggest hit was . . . a disco tune called "Heart of Glass"???!!! This kind of crap simply does not make sense. Who is doing the thinking in Cleveland?

In: The Ramones, The Clash, Elvis Costello and the Attractions, The Sex Pistols, Beastie Boys, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Guns 'n Roses (WTF?), Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Stooges (someone's idea of a joke?), KISS.

NOT In: Jethro Tull, The Cars, Emerson Lake and Palmer, The Doobie Brothers, Jan & Dean, The Monkees, King Crimson, Yes, Steppenwolf, Roxy Music, Warren Zevon, Jim Croce, Bad Company, Chicago, and so many others who are are just as - if not more - deserving than some who are already in the Hall.

Seriously, a show of hands: How many of you have heard of Jethro Tull, but have not heard of The Stooges (and no, we're not talking Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe here)?



I'm not saying that some of the "ins" shouldn't be there, it's the glaring lack of respect shown by the nominating committee to performers who have long, productive histories, and have had a clear impact on rock music in general.

And what of my beloved prog?

Outside of Genesis, Rush, and Pink Floyd, Progressive Rock is otherwise completely ignored by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (one could make a strong case that Genesis, though the induction included Peter Gabriel, were brought in largely because of what they accomplished after PG left the band and they took on a more pop-oriented style). Keith Emerson (Emerson Lake and Palmer) probably had more to do with the popularization of music synthesizers than any other rock artist. From about 1973 to 1977, with the exception of Led Zeppelin, no band on the planet sold more concert tickets worldwide than ELP (19 years of eligibility, not a sniff from the nominating committee). Steve Howe from Yes was the first guitarist retired from Guitar Player Magazine's readers poll for the "Year's Best Guitarist" because he won so many times consecutively, and, of course, the band filled arenas worldwide for many years (one nomination in 20 years). There are bands like King Crimson that have been around since the 60s, have sold lots of records and concert tickets, and, while Robert Fripp may not be a household name, most rock guitarists know him to be one of the best. Compared to Punk and New Wave, genres that are all but dead these days, Prog Rock continues with many legendary artists still performing and new bands being formed. But Prog has NEVER gotten any respect from Rolling Stone (I wouldn't be terribly surprised if most of the nominating committee members think "Prog" is the Czech capital . . . )

And what is it with Rap and Hip Hop artists in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? I realize they are extremely popular forms of music, but are those genres, by definition, "Rock?" Do we consider them an offshoot of R&B or Soul?

Truth be told, after perusing the list of inductees, I have decided that the name should be changed to either "The Pop Music Hall of Fame" or "The Rock and Rhythm & Blues Hall of Fame." Those names would be a more accurate reflection of what the current hall represents. Because right now it is a hodge-podge of performers from different genres placed in the hall by a misguided nominating committee . . .

A Touch of Madness - Part 1

I am calling this "Part 1" because there will be more things like this that come along that I will be more than happy to share. In this case it is Bill-O the Clown, but Cryin' Glenn, Princess Sarah of Wasilla, and others of there ilk will almost certainly provide plenty of fodder.

Below you will find a clip from last week where Bill-O the Clown was on one of those rants he's been on since, oh, about 2005 I think. Let's get this clear right here and now: THERE IS NO (SO-CALLED) "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!" If you think there is, get it out of your head right now . . . PERMANENTLY. People were saying "Happy Holidays" 50 years ago when I was a kid and nobody made a damned fuss about it then.

But the real point of this post is to share with you the irony in what happens at the end of Bill-O's rant and Fox News Channel goes to break. Immediately after The Clown's mindless rant what do we see?

A still from FNC wishing their viewers . . .

wait for it . . . .

Happy Holidays!

This guy is so full of crap - why do so many Americans buy into his (very tired) shtick?

The Daddy Duck Nonsense

I am amazed at the number of people who have actually come out in support of that goofball. Though in terms of overall percentage of the population it's probably not that great, just the usual random noise from a small number of extremists on the religious right, a (thankfully) dwindling portion of the U.S. electorate (a recently released poll, the third in the last year or so with similar results, shows that religious belief, in particular Christianity, in the U.S. is in steady decline*, though lagging behind most of the rest of the free world).

First and foremost, this is NOT about religious freedom, nor is it about Daddy Duck's First Amendment rights being infringed upon. No one is stopping him from being able to worship and believe whatever he chooses and, as this article shows (and probably many others if one were to search), his First Amendment rights have NOT been infringed upon.

The one thing I troubling about this kind of noise coming from the religious right is the fact that, while they just LOVE to quote Leviticus when it comes to the issue about homosexuality, they fail to pay heed to any of the other COMPLETE NONSENSE that can be found there. The classic example, of course, is Leviticus 11:9-12, but you're also told not to eat shrimp, lobster, and other shellfish - it's "an abomination unto you" - in Deuteronomy 14:9-10. When you're ready to swear off eating shrimp and lobster (and for you Daddy Duck, no more crawdads out of that swamp!), then we can talk about the other abominations. And, of course, best to stay away from bacon (Lev 11:7) or burn in Hell!

Bottom line: Daddy Duck is a racist, homophobic pig who was suspended from a TV show for making racist homophobic comments. A&E would almost certainly have suspended him for making those same statements REGARDLESS of his religious orientation.

I'm done with that idiot now.

*There's an organization called The Clergy Project here in the U.S. that, while just under 600 members, has nearly tripled in size in little more than a year. I first learned about it from an op-ed back in 2011 or 2012 in either the Washington Post or the New York Times (too lazy to go look now). The authors of that piece, though clearly stating it was not a scientific survey, estimate that between 30% and 40% of ALL clergy in the U.S. are either agnostic or atheist. Think about that for a moment - it means there is a roughly 1 in 3 chance that the person preaching to you on Sunday does NOT believe what they are saying. And, in almost all cases when people leave the clergy, their stated reasons for their change of heart is because they started really reading the Bible in depth. And the membership is coming from just about every different Christian faith - Pentecostal, Baptist, LDS, Catholic, you name it. Food for thought . . . 

The Need to Express Myself

I'm not really sure why I feel the need, but sometimes I really want to speak out, so that's why I'm going to start doing some blogging again. The biggest difference will probably be that, when I was blogging before, I more or less stayed within the realm of my nature photography and related subjects. We'll almost certainly see some of that, too, but I am also going to tackle other things. Some of it my not make people happy, but if something I have to say hits you the wrong way, keep reading because I'll provide you with facts that back up my position.

Some of it will be political and, quite frankly, I think the good ol' USA is more f*cked up that it has been in a long time. And the finger can be pointed directly toward the religious right - that's my personal opinion. I may also occasionally tackle religious subjects - there's a reasonably good chance I know more about the subject than you do.

I might talk about climate change and other environmental issues. I'll almost certainly discuss music, too (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame anyone?). And whatever else comes up. Not sure how regular posts will be, I'll write when the mood strikes.