PFunkjazz said:

You talked about Terry Kath, started citing members of groups in which Eric Clapton performed and then spent at least two posts telling people, "They're in, so what are you going to do about it?"

The issue is whether EACH ENTITY (Cream, The Yardbirds and Derek & the Dominoes) is worthy of being inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame by itself, and being judged on the merits as a James Brown, an Aretha Franklin, etc. It's fair to say each entity's track record isn't long enough to merit such a consideration.

I mean, The Time was very popular and influential in its genre and it had members with individual and collective star power. For that matter, so did New Edition. But I'm not going to be pushing for them to be in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. So why are these acts?

The fairer question is whether all three of these acts could have included as footnotes into Eric Clapton's entry.
[Edited 10/8/07 17:44pm]

Correction:

He's in there three times:
The Yardbirds were inducted in 1992
Cream was inducted in 1993
Eric got in around 1999 or 2000 if I'm not mistaken

Blind Faith and Derek & the Dominoes never got inducted.

I find it interesting that Eric was as shy as he was. He never wanted to be the front man, he hated to be in groups that had a pop slant to them. That's why he abruptly left the Yardbirds in '65 after "For Your Love" broke them through. When he got with John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers, they had to put his name in front of the headline and I think he left after that because he didn't like all the attention and that's when Cream came into place.

Between 1966 and 1968 they were one of the baddest rock groups to ever exist and then imploded. Eric then got with Blind Faith and Derek & the Dominos. Ironically, the latter group featured his first full-fledged lead song with "Layla" and that song was talking about him being in love with George Harrison's wife Patti.

He didn't really break through "solo-wise" until 1974's "I Shot the Sheriff". I think he got in solo because of him being an influential guitarist more so than having hits though he did have enough. Personally I love his version of "Cocaine".

One has to question anybody that gives a rats ass about the RR Hall of Fame. Have you been there? You could fill a book with artists they are missing and while it's nice to have anything and there's been a ton of money poured into just the building itself, Jim Morrison's fifth grade report card is not Rock & Roll.

Without Black Sabbath anywhere I can tell you that it's not a hall of fame. This place is a joke and has no bearing on the history of the music or the respect of it.

Slave2daGroove said:

Good point.

Najee said:

I never said anything about Terry Kath. Kath was raised by lastdecember. Yardbirds and Cream occupy a important development spot in the British Invasion. I just figured anybody posting as such an authority knew the importance of these two groups and so didn't bother to elaborate. Obviously I erred.

PFunkjazz said:

So that wasn't you who spoke about Terry Kath? OK, that must be someone else with your user ID.

No one said Cream was not a popular group -- just that it's hard to make a legitimate case for them being a hall of fame group given its brevity. They seem to be given more accolades for its members who went on to other things.

Coming from an r&b perspective the tendency is to point to hit singles, but that's extremely misleading. First you have to look at entire albums, especially the "deep tracks". Cream, Yardbirds and D&tD were staples of album-rock radio. Folks dug the long cuts with solos, but they didn't get much top 40 play. Also you have to be aware of the live performances as well as the guest sit-ins. These concert boots often showed up on syndicated shows like "King Biscuit" or people swapped open-reels.

PFunkjazz said:

yeah i brought up KATH mainly because Chicago is not in and yet there are artists in the Hall that speak of Kath and Chicago as influences, mainly PRINCE, he spoke of "Im the Man" by Chicago as being the song that opened doors for him as far as playing. Also Kath was someone that was influencing people like Hendrix and Carlos Santana who are in and considered rock guitar gods. My point is if "Influence" is good for some to get in than why is it not good for others. Sorry but Chicago NOT being in is a huge miss, possibly the biggest one i have seen, and then to have others in for everything they did, i have to question the method of choosing.

On a side note yes you are correct Eric is in 3 times not 4, however ALL 5 of his bands have been on the ballot, Chicago has never even been on the ballot. So to me, the whole "influence" thing is bull, who the hell did groups like "the Dixie Cups" influence, and even if the Ronnettes and Percy Sledge influenced do they really deserve to be in? To me the hall of fame is a bunch of writers/editors most work for rolling stone, throwing out a bunch of names and then making a ballot. Honestly i think the reason CHICAGO has never been on the ballot is the fact that they were a commercial "ballad" group in the 80's, no one remembers their albums where they would jam for a whole side, at least no one votes does.

PFunkjazz said:

I'm not judging Cream, The Yardbirds or Derek and The Dominoes on their hit singles solely, so that's a poor assumption. I'm weighing the group's longevity as viable acts much more.

There are plenty of other acts who had immediate, fleeting success with star power and impact, but it seems like these acts are being singled more because of one member (whose popularity and general respect within the industry is too well-documented). You can't single out these acts while ignoring other similar acts in other genres who also had similar impact.

Najee said:

Ha ha that was me wasn't it? (though I really meant it as a dig at Chicago). Why does longevity matter?

Najee said:

Which is mainly my point of the post, Clapton is in there because he is Clapton and everything else was put in "mainly" because it was Clapton,Jeff Beck,Jimmy Page etc..artists that were already in and NOTICED for other things. Granted they were great bands but the focus on them was because of the members that were in it, not mainly what they were doing in that band. I would say the same thing about WINGS, great band, but arent they just in because its Paul? I have never heard anyone speak of WINGS the group as an influence on them, sure they were great, tons of hits, but influential? The hall has shut its mind to some while letting others in for every move they make thats all im saying.

Clapton is not in 4 times, he's in 3times: as a member of The Yardbirds, with Cream, and as a solo act,

John Lennon , Paul McCartney, and George Harrison are in twice, for being in the Beatles and their solo careers. Jimmy Page is in twice also, for the Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin. Neil Young is in a least twice ,as a member of Buffalo Sprinfield and solo (not sure if he was inducted as part of Crosby Stills Nash & Young, or if it was the first 3 members only- I'll have to look it up )

Teddy Riley should be in 4 times.

-Producer
-Guy
-BLACKstreet
-Wreckx-N-Effect

PFunkjazz said:

Longevity, like most other subjective criteria, is relevant in this discussion. More importantly, when one criteria is lacking then the other frames of relevance have to take on that much more weight to even out the scales.

It also can be used as an arguing point when and if there are otherwise worthy acts with longer track records who are turned away from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. For example, what if an act like Luther Vandross repeatedly was shunned at the door? What kind of validation can be used to keep out an act like him when acts with considerably lesser track records like Cream and The Yardbirds are inducted?

PFunkjazz said:

Ha, it depends. Sometimes longevity doesn't mean bullshit (Cream, Otis Redding, etc) and sometimes it does (Ray Charles, Elvis, U2, Temptations, etc). It depends on how "influential" they are. I don't understand their logic. The Hall of Fame ain't nothing but a frigging popularity contest. I love viewing it but got damn.

Slave2daGroove said:

Sabbath is in

Timmy84 said:

Yes, sometimes depth of experience is more valuable than length of service. Take for instance The Time: Two standout albums at the onset, but absolute ZERO growth over the expanse of their career. Except for a lackluster reunion and a Greatest Hits remix antholgy they just haven't done much to match up with their potential.

lastdecember said:

Yeah, just think, that could've been EWF!

lastdecember said:

WINGS? Gawd are they in? That's a real "hairball" of a band.

PFunkjazz said:

That's why I honestly think people like them, Diana Ross, Dionne Warwick, Neil Diamond and a bunch of people the dude from FOX said was being left behind will never be inducted. Chicago went a whole decade doing POP shit. People except for pure Chicago fans remember them as a bad-ass rock group. Such a shame. I think that's the same reason why the Doobie Brothers ain't got it too. That Michael McDonald...

"Commercial ballads" a "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" inductee doesn't, I guess.

PFunkjazz said:

Nope, thank God! Paul's only in for his Beatles and solo work (or lack thereof).
[Edited 10/8/07 23:10pm]

PFunkjazz said:

Basically, The Time was a black version of Cream in terms of influence, star power and success. Eric Clapton left Cream because he got tired of the same type of guitar solos. You're talking about The Time, but critical revisionists have tagged Cream as overrated, citing the musicians' emphasis upon flash and showmanship at the expense of taste and focus.
[Edited 10/9/07 5:14am]

I've been downloading the torrents from the second Crossroads Guitar festival that Clapton puts on and ran across this exclamation from BB King that puts Eric in very high regards (this was stated on mike in the middle of the Robert Cray set in which Jimmie Vaughan, Hubert Sumlin and BB were added):



Doesn't clarify as to the HOF multiple appointments, but BB's testimony gotta have some weight with the anti-Clapton contingent... at least one might hope.


CGF: http://crossroadsguitarfe...l2007.com/
[Edited 10/15/07 5:03am]