No Spinners, huh? Unless there's more voters it looks like we'll induct 12 or 13 of the 15 acts on the ballot. The only act who hasn't gotten at least half of the vote is Sonny & Cher who have zero.



Jan & Dean will be in the next round of 50s acts, along with Chuck Willis who could have been in the first round too. I don't see how the Chi-Lites are even in the same league as the Spinners, let alone "much stronger." They only have two big mainstream hits. Granted they are both classics, but the Spinners have several mainstream classics, and many more big pop chart hits, and even a very acclaimed album. The Spinners are #103 all time on the pop singles chart, the Chi-Lites are #388. The Spinners had 7 different top 5 pop chart singles. Albums, the Chi-Lites had two albums that were big mainstream hits, nothing else that got higher than #50. The Spinners had about 7 big mainstream albums, including 5 gold albums. They were ranked #215 all time on the LP chart as of 1996. The Chi-Lites were not in the top 500. I assume you must think that the Chi-Lites are more influential, but I don't see how they could possibly be a "much stronger" candidate than the Spinners. The Spinners were also a bigger act than the Chi-Lites on the R&B charts. I'd say "It's A Shame" and "I'll Be Around" and "One Of A Kind" and "Could It Be I'm Falling In Love" amd "They Just Can't Stop It" and "Then Came You" are well enough for them to out rank the two big Chi-Lites songs.



Yes, those acts will appear on the ballot at some point, although Dorsey will be on the 50s ballot, not the 60s ballot. I originally made it 15 on the ballot because that the maximum allowed in a poll here on the site, but I'm gonna stick with that and we'll just have a bunch of rounds over the next several months. It won't take long for us to get to names that most of us will not vote for.

I go back and forth on the Spinners. My own belief is that the Hall should be tougher to get in, not easier, and so with my own Qualification Scores on the HOF pages I have no problem with 5's and 6's on the ballot, but with only a few exceptions, usually based on a glaring lack of inductees from a certain area of rock, or if the ballot for the year in question was weak, I'd stick to 7's and above, which usually would mean only three acts a year would make it, thus I'd vote for some 6's in those years to try and make sure no 3, 4 or 5's got in, if that makes sense.

The Spinners were definitely more successful than the Chi-Lites, no question, but I don't think they had quite the impact. The Chi-Lites had minor hits like "I Want To Pay You Back" and "We Are Neighbors" that were gems and mid-sized hits like "Stoned Out Of My Mind" really hold up forty years on. Even their early outings with Temptations take-offs "I Like Your Lovin (Do You Like Mine)" and "Are You My Woman" were masterpieces of that style, the interplay between the instruments (including the horn intro that Beyonce & Jay-Z used for "Crazy In Love"), the vocals weaving in and out... put those out under the Temptations name with Motown's muscle behind it in 1970 and I think they'd be considered classics. Subjective maybe, but I just see them as far more versatile to be able to pull that off convincingly, then turn around and do something vastly different once they really developed their own style, moving away from those beginnings with the screeching acid rock-esque intro to "Give More Power To The People". Eugene Record might be the most underappreciated multi-talented figure of the 70's. Great songwriter and singer, and their records had a much more experimental feel to them. "Have You Seen Her" combines distinct traits from about four or five vastly different styles, the fuzz guitar, the spoken intro, the beautiful harmonizing on the chorus, etc., and somehow makes it work. It's really an advanced production in every way. I think the reason they come up short in the charts is Record left in '76 and they didn't have any pop hits after that, he was so important to them.

The Spinners were very good, a solid vocal group and Phillipe Wynne was definitely an excellent singer and helped to cement the falsetto lead as a cornerstone of Philly Soul, but I was never tremendously impressed with their overall style, which to me veered too close to standard pop at times, even their biggest hits "Could It Be I'm Falling In Love", "I'll Be Around", "Games People Play", One Of A Kind", "Love Don't Love Nobody", and those medleys they had hits with later on, which always seems to me to be a shortcut to a hit. I don't know, they always just seemed to be the epitome of the middle of the road approach, nothing too daring, nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing really distinctive. I like "Rubberband Man" and a few other things a little bit more, but I wouldn't find myself putting their stuff on any playlists in my iPod, whereas the Chi-Lites songs will just jump out at you when they're included. I'll vote for those whose music I don't like as much if their credentials are unquestionably stronger, but when it's close the ones who were more ambitious will always get the nod from me.

So in this case where I didn't want to just vote for every "six" on the ballot, and tried to be more discerning, I made the Spinners my last cut. I'd have no problem with them moving on, and strongly considered voting for them for that reason alone, but given a head to head vote, I'm still taking the Chi-Lites in a heartbeat (and the Stylistics for that matter).

I don't see a lot of impact for the Chi-Lites, I just see that you like their records more than you like the Spinners records, and as far as the Spinners more mainstream approach, I'm not going to penalize an act for wanting to have wider appeal, play bigger venues, and make more money. Don't forget, the Spinners had their first hit over 50 years ago, and then went about 8 years with just some relatively minor hits. Once they tasted real mainstream success with Stevie Wonder's "It's A Shame" in 1970, you can't hold it against them that they wanted to break out as more of a mainstream act when they got the chance in 1972 with Atlantic.

Funny, my two favorite Stevie Wonder songs are "It's A Shame" and "Tell Me Something Good." For me none of his own records are as good as those two records.

Maybe it's the part off the country I'm in, but other than the two big hits I've never heard much Chi-Lites stuff around here. I thought "Stoned Out Of Mind" was a pretty good early disco record, but I've never considered them to be in the Spinners league.

For someone who quotes chart success as much as you do, it seems weird to see you now implying that a black group having more pop success is a bad thing. It's not like the Spinners didn't also have huge R&B chart hits. We're not talking about Johnny Mathis here. The Spinners had SIX number one R&B chart hits and another EIGHT top 5 R&B chart hits.

You've gotta to try and remove your personal taste from this process. One of my favorite acts on the 50s ballot was the Johnny Burnette Trio, but I did not vote for them.

They are on the initial 1970s ballot that we'll vote on next week.

Eugene Record has far more respect within the music community than I think you're giving him credit for, or maybe that's not the way to put it, but rather that you're not particularly interested in Musical Impact as we've defined it here for years. The Spinners were a vocal group, a very good one, they were more popular and longer lasting. They did what they did exceedingly well, even if I don't like them quite as much (and I don't dislike them, just find them not sticking out much), and I give them full credit for that. But I'm always preaching about using well-rounded criteria and finding ALL of the ways artists can make an impact and here's where I think the Chi-Lites more than make up for the disparity in chart success, particularly with Musical Impact - the reception to them from the musical community. Record not only penned the Chi-Lites hits (unlike the individual Spinners), he also wrote songs for lots of other artists, indicating that other big names, including multiple HOF'ers (Jackie Wilson, The Impressions, The Dells), were impressed with his abilities in that realm. Something like that unquestionably helps Smokey Robinson, Curtis Mayfield, Bob Dylan, Issac Hayes, in their credentials, why wouldn't it also help in his case as well? He played multiple instruments on the Chi-Lites records at various times (and also even played on sessions with another HOF group, The Staple Singers), which indicates he was more than just a vocalist, something that helps in any other case when an artist with a lesser voice than his is a multi-instrumentalist, why not in this case as well? Lastly, he produced their records, which were very cutting edge, and unquestionably turned heads when they came out. The Spinners were overseen by Thom Bell, who definitely should be in the Hall as a Non-Performer, but in the Chi-Lites case their leader produced their own stuff! Someone like Brian Wilson or Stevie Wonder or James Brown are revered for their production work as well as for their singing and writing, why wouldn't that also be true with Record? Add to it the varied styles they tried, which is always admired within music circles, and they just have more ways in which they made an impact, that's all.

One more note that I'm surprised you didn't at least consider, The Chi-Lites were on a lesser label (Brunswick) than the Spinners (Atlantic), which then began to have serious financial problems which caused their records to not be promoted as well and is what forced Record to leave the group. Since commercial impact is the one area the Spinners clearly win, I'd think that someone with as much knowledge of, interest in, and understanding of the commercial variables of different labels would at least see that as a possible reason for the disparity in popularity. True, I think the Spinners DID seek and have a more mainstream "hit" sound, and I respect that choice, but they get credit for it in that area, as you would expect. I DO think it probably hurts them in the other areas, which is what the well-rounded criteria attempts to do, prevent any ONE aspect from being the only way someone can be considered great. It interesting to note that when Record returned to the fold in the 80's (on his own label no less) they rebounded commercially, albeit strictly on the R&B Charts now including a pair of Top Tens, which shows how vital he was to their success. I know the Spinners still take that one area of the criteria fairly easily, but I just think they're soundly beaten in the others. In the end that, not personal taste alone, is what I looked at when coming up with the scores. I still think the Spinners are a decent candidate and wouldn't be at all bothered if they get in (either here or in the real Hall), but I don't think they quite stack up to the Chi-Lites when looking at all ways in which artists leave their mark on the rock world.

I doubt that many people in the (white rock) community have any idea who Eugene record is. The fact that he left the group for a number of years, wrote and produced hits for other artists and then came back to help them have some more R&B hits points more to him being considered as a contributor rather than it does to the group itself being inducted as a main performer. I don't see them ever being nominated by that Cleveland HOF.

Aside from Phliipe Wynne, G.C. Cameron and John Edwards were no slouches as lead singers for the Spinners.

I doubt that many people in the white rock community know what constitutes rock music, so that's hardly a surprise. Unfortunately many people within the Hall wouldn't know a rock if I threw one off their skulls... which would give new meaning to the hit, "Stoned Out Of My Mind".



I don't see the contributor designation as being appropriate for Record. I think in most cases you always look to someone as an ARTIST first and acertain if they did well enough there to make it in under the Main Performer category. In Record's case, considering that he wrote the Chi-Lites hits, produced their hits, played on their hits, and there were a number OF hits we're talking about, not just one or two, that he'd unquestionably make it in with the Chi-Lites. That's where he came to the attention of the music world. The fact he did these things for others as well would bolster his credentials certainly, but they're not greater collectively than his work within his own group.

The one guy who made it as a Main Performer but probably was more suited for his contributions elsewhere was Issac Hayes, but he wrote, played on and produced far more (and bigger) hits for others than for himself, and because those roles pre-dated his own hitmaking career it means he rose to prominence with areas outside of his own career as an artist. But since the Hall put him in as a Main Performer I think it shows that they usually lean towards giving someone credit as an artist if at all possible. The only notable exception is Johnny Otis, who could've also made it as an Early Influence, as well as a Main Performer and a contributor. Because he was so varied in what he did, they just had to get him in somehow, though it took far too long. Whether or not the Chi-Lites ever get nominated depends largely on them changing their decrepit committee that seems to have lifetime membership who rarely look outside their personal tastes, and has longstanding and well-publicized motives that results in repeated nominations for their favorites, and equally well-known and admitted biases that results in a lack of candidates in other areas. An entirely new nominating committee each year that reflects a broader demographic would solve that problem quite easily. Honestly, the Hall's problems are mostly procedural and are not difficult to correct, they just choose not to because those in charge like having the fate of the inductees entirely under their own control.

You're the one who's always saying that we're ranking artists here and what they did as writers and producers means nothing in your rankings, yet in this case you want it to mean something.

Do you see hall of fame qualifications to be different than the qualifications used to rank artists? For instance your ranking of the Supremes, who did not do anything but sing other people's songs with a studio orchestra, ahead of artists like Dylan and the Stones in the 60s? Dylan and the Stones wrote most of their own hits and also played instruments. Does that help them in your artist rankings, and if not, why should it help them here?

What bigger hit than "Theme From Shaft" did he write and/or produce for another artist ? And he certainly did not write or produce bigger albums for other artists than he did for himself.




Their inductions of Carole King only as a contributor and Little Walter only as a sideman contradict your point with Hayes.



I don't see it. If even someone like me does not see the Chi-Lites as an act deserving nomination, I don't see how you'll ever put together a committee that does.

Lew's 1970s artist list has the Spinners at #61 and the Chi-Lites at #90.
You must have helped with that because I don't see the Chi-Lites as belonging in the top 100, especially when acts like Carole King and Diana Ross are outside the top 100.

I think they're different, absolutely. A Hall Of Fame denotes their contributions overall to rock music. Ranking Greatest Artists means their work strictly as artists. If they wrote, played and produced those records then yes, they do get credit within the criteria for that IF those areas resulted in influence and impact, which they generally do if they're any good (remember it's their releases themselves that are being judged on the artist lists for impact and influence), but nobody is being credited seperately for being able to play the kazoo or something. So the Supremes is actually the same example I would've given. As artists they had a greater overall impact within the 60's than Dylan or the Stones. With the Hall, it's their overall career in music as a whole - any aspect of what they did factors in to their worthiness - so the writing and playing gives them more ways to make it. Same with Chuck Willis, his songwriting was successful for others, so in determining whether he was a Hall of Famer, that would matter, because it's Chuck Willis the human being we're honoring, everything he did within music has to be considered. But for the 50's Artists list it's Chuck Willis the artist, and the impact and influence of those records released under his name, whatever the source material (C.C. Rider for example), that is all that is being judged. So yes, it's different. I'm not saying everyone views it that way, and Lord knows what the Hall itself thinks of any of this, or if they even care, but that's how I've always defined it.

Just wondering why no vote for Chubby Checker (#42 on your 60s artist list) from you on the 50s ballot, but a YES vote here for Gene Chandler (#82 on the same list) and Mary Wells (#55 on the same list).

Apparently you see hall of fame qualifications differently than you see qualifications for your ranking criteria, correct?

What makes Mary Wells better qualified for the HOF than Chubby Checker?

Wells did nothing outside the 60s, while Chubby had a hit in 1959, and some other hits after the 60s, most notably the remake of "The Twist" with the Fat Boys in 1988.

I'll vote "yes" to all except Sonny & Cher, though Chandler would be near the bottom of the list of those that I would say yes to. I think Cher is more deserving than Sonny & Cher, because in deciding her credentials, I would include much of the credit S&C would get, plus all of her solo career.

I see your point concerning Cher's post Sonny career, but don't underestimate his infleuence on her solo career before the two of them broke up. It was more or less like a Buddy Holly/Crickets thing, a way for them to have two records out at the same time.

For Instance, "All I Ever Need Is You" was top ten at the same time as "Gypsies, Tramps And Thieves."

WABC Music Power Survey for Week of 7 December 1971

TW LW
1. Family Affair - Sly & the Family Stone (Epic) *2 weeks #1* 1
2. Got to Be There - Michael Jackson (Motown) 3
3. Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves - Cher (Kapp) 2
4. Baby I'm-a Want You - Bread (Elektra) 5
5. Theme from Shaft - Isaac Hayes (Enterprise) 6
6. Have You Seen Her - The Chi-Lites (Brunswick) 4
7. Cherish - David Cassidy (Bell) 10
8. Brand New Key - Melanie (Neighborhood) 29
9. Scorpio - Dennis Coffey & the Detroit Guitar Band (Sussex) 11
10. All I Ever Need Is You - Sonny & Cher (Kapp)17
11. Imagine - John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (Apple) 7
12. Old-Fashioned Love Song - Three Dog Night (Dunhill) 16
13. American Pie - Don McLean (United Artists) 31
14. The Desiderata - Les Crane (Warner Brothers) 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rock Steady - Aretha Franklin (Atlantic) 8
16. Hey Girl - Donny Osmond (MGM) 49
17. Two Divided By Love - The Grass Roots (Dunhill) 12
18. Superstar (Remember How You Got Where You Are) -
The Temptations (Gordy) 13
19. Peace Train - Cat Stevens (A&M) 9
20. Stones - Neil Diamond (Uni) 23
21. Respect Yourself - The Staple Singers (Stax) 21
22. Let's Stay Together - Al Green (Hi) --
25. (I Know) I'm Losing You - Rod Stewart with Faces (Mercury) --
26. You Are Everything - The Stylistics (Avco) 26
29. One Monkey Don't Stop No Show - The Honey Cone (Hot Wax) --
30. Anticipation - Carly Simon (Elektra) 60
37. Drowning In the Sea of Love - Joe Simon (Spring) --
48. Sugar Daddy - The Jackson 5 (Motown) --
64. Theme from "Summer of '42" - Peter Nero (Columbia) --
Jingle Bells - The Singing Dogs (RCA)

Sonny also wrote and produced some of her best solo records. This arrangement allowed them to have two separate contracts at the time, one with Atco and one with Imperial.

I can see giving Sonny some credit for her records that he wrote and/or produced. For most of her solo career, that wasn't the case.