Not really trying to nitpick, but the Moody Blues only a 5 while someone like Larry Williams is a 6, seems crazy to me.

I'd make it Larry Williams-5, Moody Blues-7.

By the way, it took the Hall Of Fame almost two months to pay me for the fact checking job I did on the bios on their website. Finally got the check a couple weeks ago.

Funny you should say that. When you gave me the link to the revised Top 300 Artists in Popular Music one of the things that jumped out at me was the Moody Blues. I thought they were far too high.

They definitely have the one song with the biggest impact - NIWS - between the two, but they had so many lineup changes that, using the Hall's own history on these things, they tend to view those types of artists skeptically, almost like they're different groups entirely. The ones who were so huge that the lineup changes don't matter (Tempts, Drifters, Yardbirds) are okay, but the next tier or so down from that level the turnover seems to be counted against them. A reason, for instance, why Deep Purple has trouble getting recognized. Maybe the Moody Blues could get up to a six, but never a 7. My own personal HOF cutoff would be seven. Six only with huge influence. But there are a number of 6's that are more like 6.5 if I gave those out.

They were dropped some from the original revision after I absorbed the comments.

236. Moody Blues (was 199)

How is Chicago only a 5?

They are the biggest rock act of all time that is eligible and not yet in. They are top 20 all time on both the singles and album charts in the USA. You give them the same rating as Bananarama and the Bangles?

To Sampson

I would really like to read your opinion on the chances of Bernie Taupin and "Weird Al" Yankovic being inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. How would you rate each one on your qualifications scale from 1 to 10. Could you please add Bernie Taupin to your Non-Performers section? http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/b ... e_non.html . You can put "Weird Al" Yankovic on your 50 Unlikely Candidates page http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/b ... e_xlf.html or your Outside Genre Possibilities page http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/b ... e_out.html .

Why don't you have the artists in your 50 Unlikely Candidates section and your Outside Genre Possibilities section rated?

Thank you

Also, Marv Tarplin is being inducted into the Rock Hall as a member of the Miracles. Don't you think you should remove him from your sidemen candidates page? I don't think the Rock Hall will induct Tarplin a second time in the future. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/b ... _side.html

Have you read my Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame induction speech for Chicago?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1128&start=30

Did you read all the Rock Hall stats in the first post of this thread?

More artists for your Non-Performers list -please add:

Bernie Lowe, John Simon, Phil Ramone, Quincy Jones, Robert Blackwell, Rudy Toombs, David Porter, Bernie Taupin, David Foster, Jim Steinman, Carole Bayer Sager, Diane Warren, Casey Kasem

Kal Mann and Dave Appell
Burt Bacharach and Hal David
Henry Cosby and Sylvia Moy
Nick Ashford and Valerie Simpson

PLEASE RESPOND, THANK YOU.

DIGITAL DREAM DOOR'S OLD ROCK HALL QUALIFICATIONS SCALE

1 - Non-existant
2 - Mostly Insignificant
3 - Recognizable, But Minor Credentials
4 - Modest Accomplishments
5 - Worth Examining, But Will Often Fall Short
6 - Strong Case To Be Made
7 - Solid Choice
8 - Unquestioned Credentials
9 - Dominant Artist
10 - The Immortals

THE NEW SCALE

10 - The Immortals
9 - Deserves To Be A First Ballot Lock
8 - Should Be Guaranteed An Induction
7 - An Eventual Induction Is Likely
6 - Should Be Nominated At Some Point
5 - Worthy Of At Least A Debate For A Nomination
4 - Not Insignificant, But Shouldn't Be Nominated
3 - No Business Being Debated By Committee
2 - No Business Being Even Mentioned
1 - No Business Visiting The Hall Of Fame Without a Ticket

I LIKED THE WORDINGS OF THE OLDER SCALE BETTER!
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/b ... me_x1.html

Hi Sampson. I really like your Hall of Fame pages a lot and agree with the vast majority of issues you have with the HoF's induction process and the actual inductions resulting from the process. Yet there are a couple of questions regarding your candidate pages that I'd like to pur forward if you don't mind.

Billy Stewart (5): What exactly are Stewart's credentials? His popularity is rather limited. He placed no more than three Top 40 hits on the pop charts with only one of them just barely making the Top 10. On the R&B charts he did slightly better but still pales in comparison to other artists. He may have had a unique singing style but not a very influential one, at least that's how it appears to me. He may have introduced scat singing to rock, but scatting never was a big part of rock. The other points you raise for him, a "superb voice and beautiful song craftsmanship", seem pretty insignificant/subjective to me.

Otis Williams & the Charms (5): This is one that confuses me the most. Only two pop hits, no influence, little impact (which you even admit in their short profile). Why them and not say The Del Vikings, who enjoyed three pop Top 20 hits, had more acclaim and lasting appeal and were one of the earliest racially integrated groups. Even The Clef- and Harptones seem more deserving. They may have had less success on the pop charts but their overall (and especially lasting) reputation is much better than that of The Charms.

Archibald (5 for the early influences): I won't question his credentials, I just don't know enough about him. What makes me wonder is the last sentence of his profile: You say that "his influence on every piano player in rock (...) is undeniable" but name four examples that all represent the New Orleans style.

Since you seem be to very eager about including many black artists on your pages the glaring absence of Donny Hathaway and Roberta Flack makes me wonder why you excluded them.

Thanks in advance for your answer!

Hmm, I dunno. Don't they just induct the members that were most responsible for the most notable work? I'm pretty sure the only Tempts inducted are the initial five plus Dennis Edwards. I don't see why they couldn't do something similar for Deep Purple, the Moody Blues, Yes, and other such acts. Their key members are obvious. And what makes the Yardbirds more "huge" than the Moody Blues? Big names? Influence? Can't be popularity.

The Moody Blues were ranked as the #69 act of all time on the album charts as of 1996. I don't have the updated rankings, but they had 5 platinum albums and 6 other gold albums. They were even bigger in the UK, with 8 different top ten albums, three of them at #1. They are/were much more popular with the general public than the Yardbirds.

The old qualification scale led to far too many accusations that I was disrespectful of an artist's work in the lower half of the scale, rather than what it was supposed to show - their qualifications specifically as it refers to their HOF candidacy. Artists can have significant achievement in music overall and yet they'd be "minor" or "modest" in relation to the HOF, specifically if their style was somewhat removed from rock. Let's say I had given say Miles Davis a 3 (recognizable, but minor accomplishments), that might be totally accurate in relation to his "rock" output (hugely recognizable name, but his rock work - jazz fusion - was relatively minor in his own career and especially in rock's evolution) and people would get outraged because Davis himself, and his entire body of work outside rock, was so monumental. Rather than detract from the artist and have people miss the point entirely, I changed it so it was clear I was talking simply about their HOF credentials, nothing more.

First off let me say I have a huge backlog of Non-Performer candidates in my files, including Taupin, who I think I give either a 7 or 8. However I'm doing my best to keep each page at a set number of candidates and with the Non-Performers, because so many radically different aspects of rock are included (songwriters, producers, engineers, dee-jays, remixers, executives, writers/historians, etc.) I try and include names from each of those areas. Usually songwriters and producers will be highest ranked, simply because their jobs are so intrinsic to rock overall, but to have nothing but people from those areas wouldn't give a full picture of what the Hall should be considering, so sometimes deserving candidates get left off the page to make room for others, as in the case of not just Taupin but David Porter, who is in much the same boat - their partners both made it in as Main Performers, while their work co-writing with them hasn't been recognized - weren't honored. I felt that adding them when their "other half" were already in would be redundant in the write-ups (though I firmly believe both should be inducted). Remember, I'm trying to show everything I can in a limited space and sometimes the choices are hard. It doesn't mean he's not deserving, but I felt others were more important to mention, even if their scores are lower. BTW - that only happens in the Non-Performer section, since it is such a diverse category. Ashford & Simpson were to be the next ones I added, but I went with Larry Levine instead because two engineers (Dowd and Matassa) just went in the Hall this year, removing them from that page (and they were two of just a small handful of candidates I gave 10's to) and that left just Bunny Robyn as representing that important faction on the remaining list. Also, there's so many Motown candidates (deservedly so) that A&S would be redundant as well, but again, very deserving. It's all about trying to keep that particular page as diverse as possible, that's all.

Yankovic would get a 0, which isn't even on the list of qualifications. Novelty artists are cute, not important. If there was to be a novelty artist getting in it'd be Buchanan and Goodman for introducing a form of sampling to rock ("break-in records"), but even them I'd give a 1 at best. Weird Al is not an Unlikely Candidate because those are for artists who actually have a CHANCE at getting in, oftentimes with less than deserving credentials, or borderline credentials. He has no credentials, other than a handful of hits which are simply (clever?) re-workings of other bigger hits, and more importantly he has no CHANCE, so adding him there would defeat the entire purpose of the 50 Unlikely Candidates.

As for why the Unlikely Candidates and Outside Genre Possiblities aren't rated... think about it. I write about them specifically because they might get in DESPITE not having the credentials. To give any of them scores would run counter to the entire object of those two pages.

Now to be fair, on the 50 Unlikely Candidates there are SOME artists listed who I could put in the 150 Candidates with a "5" (the lowest I'll go for naming someone as a candidate). The Shangri-Las for instance would deserve a five and I considered moving them to the 150 this past week if I needed another spot to bring it to that number, then I'd have named someone less deserving to take their place on the 50 Unlikely Candidates who the Hall might consider. But remember that the point is to predict which candidates with lesser credentials actually might get nominated and elected and they have a better chance than some of the other fives on the 150 list. Therefore it makes sense to include them in a way that tells people this, rather than lump them in with all of the rest of the fives in the Top 150, if that makes sense.

Style, pure and simple. The groups that started off in the late 60's with jazz-roots evident (BST for example) never got much love from rock itself and with Chicago they moved so far into mainstream pop/adult contemporary markets which is viewed as the antithesis of rock by many that they killed their own chances to be rewarded for their massive success. That doesn't mean they're not going to get in at some point, they very well could. The Hall has done it before with similar type artists who straddled that fence - ABBA and Neil Diamond specifically - but I was adament about them not getting in for the same reason. I have Whitney Houston on the Outside Genre list even though a handful of her records are much more in line with the original musical definition of rock than most of those others. I could even see myself adding Chicago to that list, which might make more sense, especially since it wouldn't come with a qualification score, which is what people tend to get upset or confused about.

Not everyone agrees with my assessment of the mainstream pop leaning artists, but I do try and be consistent with it. Not a knock on any of their abilities or achievements. ABBA were incredible singers and studio whizzes, Diamond was a great songwriter and legendary live performer and Chicago were very versatile and amazingly popular.... Houston for that matter had a voice like few others. It's just their career choices that I feel put them on the fringes of the rock field and to credit them entirely AS rock if that's the case seems wrong. It'd be like saying because Sinatra recorded a few rock covers that we have to give him a 10 for a Rock 'n' Roll Hall Of Fame because his overall career was so legendary.

Actually, the same thing applies to what pauldrach then asked - "Since you seem be to very eager about including many black artists on your pages the glaring absence of Donny Hathaway and Roberta Flack makes me wonder why you excluded them." - the reason is the same. They consciously veered towards mainstream pop/adult contemporary, which lessens their credentials for the Rock Hall, even though their accomplishments were very good. I'm only looking at things musically and their reasons for being excluded are the same as the others would be hurt in being considered - style.

I think you're insane.

Chicago was always played on AOR stations from the beginning, unlike Neil Diamond, Abba and Whitney Houston. They were always considered to be rock. Records like "25 or 6 To 4" and "Make Me Smile" and "Beginnings"are staples of classic rock formats.

Why is Santana rewarded for combining Latin Jazz with rock, but Chicago is penalized for having a bit of a jazz influence on their rock sound?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_(band)

Chicago is an American rock band formed in 1967 in Chicago, Illinois. The self-described "rock and roll band with horns" began as a politically charged, sometimes experimental, rock band and later moved to a predominantly softer sound, becoming famous for producing a number of hit ballads. They had a steady stream of hits throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Second only to The Beach Boys in terms of Billboard singles and albums chart success among American bands, Chicago is one of the longest running and most successful pop/rock and roll groups.

According to Billboard, Chicago was the leading US singles charting group during the 1970s. They have sold over 38 million units in the US, with 22 gold, 18 platinum, and 8 multi-platinum albums.[4][5] Over the course of their career they have charted five No. 1 albums, and have had 21 top ten hits.

In 1971, Chicago released the ambitious quadruple-album live set, Chicago at Carnegie Hall Volumes I, II, III, and IV, consisting of live performances, mostly of music from their first three albums, from a week-long run at the famous venue; along with the James Gang and Led Zeppelin in 1969, Chicago was one of the few rock bands to play the historic concert hall since The Beatles performed there on February 12, 1964. The performances and sound quality were judged sub-par; in fact, trombonist James Pankow went on record to say that "the horn section sounded like kazoos." The packaging of the album also contained some rather strident political messaging about how "We [youth] can change The System," including massive wall posters and voter registration information. Nevertheless, Chicago at Carnegie Hall went on to become the best-selling box set by a rock act, and held that distinction for 15 years.