Most shocking Rock & Roll Hall of Fame snubs (according to CNN.com)

well they're disco, so never

Well, Abba made it, right?

(No, I do not expect a single person on here to agree with me.)0

^ Man, if you start applying SABR-metrics to music, there will be no more need for ILM

Abba aren't disco

We want the other 90!

What do you mean "we," Kemo Sabe?

xp Kinda agree, Tom (though Abba were sometimes disco, and Boney M weren't just disco.) But they were definitely the two Europop groups that ruled the Un-American planet in the late '70s.

Sometimes, yes, but not very often

xp Btw, speaking of Radio On, Phil Dellio once proved via Bill James formulas that Milli Vanilli were better than Dylan. (Had to do with Dylan having way more albums that were obviously worse than Girl You Know It's True than were obviously better.) So I'm not sure how much I trust SABR-metrics in general.

SABR metrics measure individuals largely for their capacity to contribute to team effort, so it would be an odd way to compare solo artists or bandleaders.

Man, if you start applying SABR-metrics to music, there will be no more need for ILM

I don't know--obviously you can't start quantifying the value of music through complicated formulas, but I've always thought James's peak value vs. career value distinction applies very well to artistic careers, whether it be music, film, or anything else. Peak value = Neil Young (Everybody Knows - Zuma)/Rod Stewart (An Old Raincoat - Never a Dull Moment)/Robert Altman (MASH - Nashville), career value = Neil Young/Rod Stewart/Robert Altman over the long slog. Some people are all peak value (X-Ray Spex), some all career value (the Police); people who are all peak value are invariably much more interesting than people who are all career value. Some have lots of both. Some--Brewer & Shipley--have neither. (I take that back--"One Toke Over the Line"'s pretty good!)

seriously why don't you just put a gun to music's head and end it

seriously

Come to think of it, I think a lot of the polls on ILM take the peak value/career value split as a given.

let's ruin everything with overthinking!

i'd say Public Enemy not being in is the most shocking

You can only get voted in 25 years after your debut record, so PE still has a few years to go. They're shoo-ins once they're eligible.

― kornrulez6969, Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:31 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

oh, ok -- i thought that maybe there was something pre-yo bum rush which is why they were included.

Absolutely my objective in saying that Neil Young was at his greatest from Everybody Knows to Zuma--I want to ruin everything.

Thinking, generally, is not a bad thing.

So what is this Public Enemy single from before they were called Public Enemy that everybody keeps talking about? I can't believe I've never even heard of that before.

"Check out the Radio" by Spectrum City

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU6OKHU7fLo

btw I'm not against THINKING or discussing music actually

i just think bringing douchey fantasy baseball statistics bullshit into music discussions is a pretty poor substitute for actual thought

yeah i agree, 100%. overthinking--generally not a good idea

also clemenza i get the sneaking impression you actually haven't *heard* some of the classic alice cooper records and are just building up this house of cards faux mathematical thing as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that you don't know wtf you are talking about.

(xhukx - spectrum city was basically a mobile DJ thing that played parties on long island, was basically chuck d and the core of the bomb squad dudes, i think chuck just started rapping because that was becoming the fashion for the dj crews to have rappers)

Actually, Marsh did write that (blue book) T. Rex entry. (Probably what you meant to say.)

Whoops. I actually though someone else had written that entry. His Bolan praise in the 1001 singles book fucked with my memory of the blue RS book.

(I take that back--"One Toke Over the Line"'s pretty good!)

^^ you just be glad you put this part in

also clemenza i get the sneaking impression you actually haven't *heard* some of the classic alice cooper records and are just building up this house of cards faux mathematical thing as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that you don't know wtf you are talking about.

clemenza is actually Alice Cooper

Dylan has more homers but Alice Cooper has more stolen bases. Velvets lead in hit-by-pitch.

Mr Jiggalo: I've heard all of the songs Chuck listed, albeit not yesterday--should I have relistened to each and every one before posting? And, as I mentioned way upthread, I'm approaching this as someone who loved Alice Cooper back in 1973, when I was 12 years old. I just, kind of, moved on.

Milli Vanilli used steroids

I haven't heard any of the classic alice cooper albums but I have no desire to after having heard lots of alice cooper singles. do the albums sound less like novelty songs you would play at a halloween party?

Come to think of it, I think a lot of the polls on ILM take the peak value/career value split as a given.

― clemenza, Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:44 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The difference between music and sports and why these formulas dont work is that if an artist falls off the rails you can just ignore the bad shit. I am a huge Black Sabbath fan, but I don't listen to any of the Tony Martin shit because I think it sucks. It has no bearing on how great Vol. 4 is. But when Dale Murphy forgets how to hit, or Steve Sax forgets how to throw, or Willie Mays plays outfield for the Mets like he is perpetually shitfaced, you have to take that into consideration because they are still sinking their team, and this is impossible to ignore.

True enough, but again, career value/peak value isn't a formula; it's just an acknowledgement that when somebody says "I love Neil Young," they may be making a general statement about his whole body of work, or they might be zeroing in on his greatest work. I always name Neil Young as my favourite artist ever, but the truth is, I'm zeroing in on that Everybody Knows[i] - [i]Zuma period when I say it; I'm not thinking about the albums he made in the '90s and 2000s, most of which I don't even own.

Yeah, but they don't go and take last years trophy off them. (xpost)

Autotune = pine tar

True, but using sports metrics to gauge artistic merit, even getting into Hall of Fame type shit, just doesnt work. Even those ridiculous 100 best guitarist things that Rolling Stone periodically shits out are utterly ridiculous.

xpost

And when someone puts up a poll on, say, the best Rolling Stones album between Beggars Banquet and Exile (I'm picking that out of the air, not saying such a poll exists), aren't they implicity suggesting something akin to peak value, even if they don't use those specific words?

clearly 2006 is their strongest year, I mean they made it to the super bowl

Great! And yes, James's formulas give them extra credit for making it to the big show.

http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17504&stc=1&d=1232422631

I don't know why people are talking as if clemenza's suggestions are so far out of left field (sorry).

Every Joy Division vs New Order discussion comes down to two perfect albums + a bunch of perfect singles vs a lot of really good albums and singles spread out over a longer stretch of time. We talk about career value vs peak value on this board all this time, and even though we might not call it that, the concept is hardly new.

Thank you!

In all seriousness, I guess I'm usually a career value guy. I like artists with sprawling messy discographies with lots of cul de sacs and byways to explore and find connections between (The Fall, Rush, Sun City Girls, Robyn Hitchcock, Dylan etc)

But then when forced to make a list of my favorite records they tend to include mostly peak value things (Laughingstock, Tilt, A Walk Across The Rooftops, Golden Age Of Wireless etc)

Every Joy Division vs New Order discussion comes down to two perfect albums + a bunch of perfect singles vs a lot of really good albums and singles spread out over a longer stretch of time.

As long as those "two perfect albums" are Power, Corruption & Lies and Technique, I am okay with this discussion.

Both better than Closer and/or Unknown Pleasures, much as I love them both.

Every Joy Division vs New Order discussion

and neither of those very fine, influential bands is in the R&R HoF either. and yes, that's a damn shame.

i mean, i can see why the rockist old farts may balk @ New Order (given that the Cure and Depeche Mode aren't in there b/c Wenner, Marsh et. al. don't think they're "rock" enough). but considering all of the critical ink that's been spilled over Joy Division?!?

I think I'm a peak-value-nestled-into-career-value guy. As with the Neil Young example cited above, I love the Beatles for their career value, but I love the Beatles even more for their peak value (which, for me, resides in With the Beatles - Revolver). And I definitely think a meteoric peak value (like Tommy James in the late '60s) leaves behind much greater music than a dutiful career value (for me, somebody like the Pretenders).

It just occurs to me that I've been accused on this thread of a) letting other people do my thinking for me, and b) overthinking. Any bids on letting other people do my overthinking for me?

xxxpost

I knew somebody would say that! I personally think that "Unknown Pleasures" is the only perfect JD album, "Technique" is the only perfect NO album, and NO's best five singles >> JD's best five singles (although LWTUA > any NO single). But the main thing is that NO's longevity is usually their strongest asset in the discussion.

but considering all of the critical ink that's been spilled over Joy Division?!?

in the US though?

Oops--make that Beatles for Sale - Revolver.