Some trivia:

Prior nominations for Chic: 7
Total prior nominations for the other 15 acts: 8

The earliest prior nomination for one of these artists, though, was The Meters, who were nominated back in 1997.

Also odd how there are three nominees at the end of the alphabet--Wray, Yes, Zombies. There have only been four prior artists nominated whose names started later in the alphabet than Wo (five, if you count the Rascals, who were sometimes listed as The Young Rascals on the ballot). All are in, and the last was ZZ Top in 2004.

Ronstadt making the ballot might also give reason to have hope about Chicago.

If I were voting, I'd vote for Nirvana plus 5 of these 7: Chic, Deep Purple, Hall and Oates, LL Cool J, N.W.A., Linda Ronstadt, Yes.

My personal belief is that they keep nominating PBBB because they really want to induct their revered guitarist, Mike Bloomfield (outside of the band's he's also known for records like "Super Session" and the soundtrack for "Medium Cool"), but don't want to induct him as a sideman, which would actually make total sense (also PBBB's "East-West" is a rather well-liked and influential album, but not even as influential as the non-inducted John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers' "Blues Breakers with Eric Clapton").

I hope this is finally Chic's year. Nile Rodgers' increased profile from his collaboration on a popular and acclaimed Daft Punk record might hopefully, finally help their case somewhat.

In fact, two other first-timers, The Replacements and Linda Ronstadt, seem to have been nominated based on news in the recent year (the 'Mats reunited, Ronstadt announced she can't sing due to Parkinson's). I'd really love for Ronstadt to get in (especially this year), and she has enough pull as a Jann Wenner favorite to maybe be successful in doing so, but there's a few other nominees this year that would make more sense.

Nirvana leads 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction nominees, followed by KISS, Hall & Oates, Linda Ronstadt
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... z2hz7YDsFe

The 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/the-2014-r ... 42959.html

Sampson of Digital Dream Door has posted his critique of the 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees
http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_ ... -2014.html

"with this year those who made their debut in 1989 eligible for induction,"

I don't think that's correct. I think those who made their debut in 1989 will become eligible next year.

There are artists in the Hall of Fame for one great single.

There shouldn't be, IMO. And, really, the only one who seems to fit that description is Percy Sledge. Certainly Del Shannon or Buffalo Springfield, to take two examples, wouldn't be in there if you took away their one huge single, but they both have a bunch of other important recordings, too. If they were really going to vote acts in for one great single, the Kingsmen and the Sugarhill Gang would be there.

BTW, in the RS poll I voted for Nirvana, H&O, LL, NWA, and Ronstadt.

Sampson did a good job here; most of his points are on target. For example, while I would tend to rate Cat Stevens a little higher than he does, he makes a damn good point that Barry White and Steve Miller from the same era would both be much more worthy.

It does make a certain amount of sense that the 60s (and the 50s) would be more represented than later decades, but when it gets to the point where the PBBB and the Zombies are on the ballot over Janet Jackson, they've gone way too far.

Those are the types I'm talking about. There are a number of acts where, if you took away one key song, they probably would not be inducted: The Ventures, Gene Vincent, Ritchie Valens, Led Zeppelin, etc.

Sure, but apart from maybe Valens (and of course Zep! ) they all have a much bigger body of work to back up that one hit than the Zombies do.

Switching tactics:



The Sex Pistols have one (great) album.

Thank you.

To clarify though, I didn't mean that the 60's shouldn't have more inductees overall than the 80's at this point, they should because they've been eligible far longer, but in terms of how many got put in when first eligible the 60's dwarfs the 80's (first ten years for each decade in eligibility it was 37-8). Even during just these last ten years, when the 80's acts first became eligible, so ALL of the elite artists from that time came up for consideration, meaning they should've dominated the focus, they've gotten just those aforementioned 8 in, but during that same ten year stretch (2004-now) the 60's have gotten something like 22 in. That's after nearly twenty years of eligibility for the 60's and long after their absolute elite (Beatles, Beach Boys, Supremes, Wonder, etc.), not to mention second (Byrds, Pickett, Four Tops, Kinks) and third tier (Spoonful, Mamas & Papas, Animals, Sam & Dave) were already long since inducted. So that means we were down to the 4th, 5th and 6th tier level of sixties acts by the mid to late 2000's and they're STILL beating out the 1st and 2nd tier 80's artists who had just become eligible, beating them both in terms of nominations and inductions. That's absurd.

Mine were Link Wray, LL Cool J, Deep Purple, Chic, and Hall & Oates. I felt Nirvana was such a lock they didn't need my extra vote on an ephemeral ballot.

First Facebook comment for the post about Sampson's article


Oh rockists, you never learn, do you?

Anyone care to post Sampson's spiel about rap being a form of rock? I don't feel like arguing with graying Zeppelin fans today.