2002 Hall of Fame Ballot

[cheekimonk]

I'd say there's a great deal of subjectivity involved in choosing Radiohead over Pink Floyd. I can't say I agree with you; Floyd has some absolutely iconic songs and cross over into nearly any genre, while Radiohead is still legitimately eclectic, OK Computer or no OK Computer.

Well, it's kind of a tough argument as most people haven't spent a lot of time deep in the Radiohead catalog. I also happen to have done so for them and Pink Floyd. Floyd was one of my favorite bands of all time when I started following Radiohead. Both bands are among the very, very few that I decided was worth having their entire discography (obviously bought "post-mortem" where Floyd is concerned). I don't think they are comparable at all, really, in what they were/are doing, but I also think there is a large gap between the two bands in accomplishment (with Radiohead being better, IMO). Floyd would go into experimentation with a "wherever this takes us" kind of vibe. Radiohead does it with a precision that says "we are doing something no one has done before, but we know exactly what we are doing." I guess I feel like Floyd opened the door to new places and just went exploring, but Radiohead took the doors off their hinges, charted a precise path, and dared anyone else to follow them with the same technical skill and manipulation of musical themes that they used.

[cheekimonk]

Errr what... the Stones short burst of fame? 1964 first album goes Gold in UK and US, they then make consistently brilliant albums, Their Satanic Majesties 1967 (Gold) Let It Bleed 1969 (Platinum) Exile on Main St 1972 (Platinum) Some Girls 1978 (Platinum) to name but a few. Even discounting the patchy Tattoo You and Undercover (1981 and 1983) and the descent into shite that was the 90's thats hardly a short burst of fame. The Beatles 1963-70 is a far shorter if equally brilliant career. Anyway thread hijack over

I think everyone's estimation of the Stones music is way out of proportion to their actual accomplishments. They didn't break any new ground, they were just the most popular band doing what they did (and a media darling to boot). You are correct in citing the sales of their albums from mid-60s to late-70s, but I don't think their span of greatness (their TRUE span, not what the media and their fans thought was their greatness) was during a much smaller window. To be precise I've always counted their peak as being Majesties to Exile. That would be around 10 years.

[TimB]

Errr what... the Stones short burst of fame? 1964 first album goes Gold in UK and US, they then make consistently brilliant albums, Their Satanic Majesties 1967 (Gold) Let It Bleed 1969 (Platinum) Exile on Main St 1972 (Platinum) Some Girls 1978 (Platinum) to name but a few. Even discounting the patchy Tattoo You and Undercover (1981 and 1983) and the descent into shite that was the 90's thats hardly a short burst of fame. The Beatles 1963-70 is a far shorter if equally brilliant career. Anyway thread hijack over

I think everyone's estimation of the Stones music is way out of proportion to their actual accomplishments. They didn't break any new ground, they were just the most popular band doing what they did (and a media darling to boot). You are correct in citing the sales of their albums from mid-60s to late-70s, but I don't think their span of greatness (their TRUE span, not what the media and their fans thought was their greatness) was during a much smaller window. To be precise I've always counted their peak as being Majesties to Exile. That would be around 10 years.

If I'm honest I totally agree after Exile you're lucky to get one or two decent tracks on an album. Makes for a good debate though! As to Radiohead I still remember hearing Karma Police for the first time, wow........

[JimBob2232]

Going back to baseball...

Rockefeller is an interesting candidate. One of the big problems with the HOF voting is that the statistics for what makes a good pitcher in MBBWA does not align with what makes a good pitcher in the MLB. You don't see many 250-300 wins pitchers. You dont see guys with 15 years of dominance. If you look at the current HOF members, there are very few pitchers.

I agree Rockefeller isnt your prototypical candidate for the HOF, but I did rate him high on my ballot due to the fact that he compares favorably with other HOF pitchers already enshrined. Admittedly his SP/MR status makes him harder to evaluate.

And 100+ games pitched in a year??? That's crazy talk.

[aaronweiner]

Thread re-hijacked...

I agree that Radiohead's music (and I spent quite a bit of time on them on Pandora) is unique. Uniqueness isn't always a benefit, however; for example, I'd happily listen to a Smashing Pumpkins album than most of Radiohead's musical library, and the Pumpkins are nearly as unusual (if not equally) as Radiohead.

Pink Floyd's music wasn't quite as unique in many ways, even their experimental stuff; that was the kind of long instrumentalist construction you saw a lot of in the 60s and 70s. That said, Floyd is overwhelmingly listenable even in the pure acid states and even their mumblings are interesting. I simply can't stomach Radiohead for too long.

Also, on the Stones: ten years is a CENTURY for a band, even a rock band, to churn out high-quality music. No, there's nothing about the Stones other than attitude, solid work and a general lyrical competency that make them unique, but they were among the first to popularize what they were doing - a big plus to their legacy.

[LambeauLeap]

I know that Russell's objectivity or integrity wasn't directly attacked here, but we should understand, like Matt stated, that He's an owner with the same biases, etc. as we do. He provides results at the end and of everyone I know or have known online, "Moon" is the ABSOLUTE last person I'd question in terms of integrity or anything of the sort. HE does teh HOF stuff as a service to help out Matt and the board, and as someone who likes the historical aspects of things, is someone worth listening to regarding history, etc.

Doesnt' mean I vote based on his opinion, but I like what he has to offer and hopes he continues to interject as he sees fit. I never saw anything wrong with it. He's a ballot preparation and reader and I don't see how he could sway anyone one way or another unless that other person allows it. It takes two to tango.

[bschr682]

I'm voting right now.

[Al-Hoot]

I'm voting right now.

[jcrmoon42]

And I do apologize if my stating an opinion about the voting bothers anyone. However, that said, please don't expect it to stop. I think the discussion and debate is a huge part of the fun and don't really feel I should be excluded from the process. If anyone, at any point in time, has reason to question the totals, I will happily send the spreadsheet on which I track them. I don't post it publicly, because I feel that the individuals who vote should have the right to make their votes public if they so choose. It is not up to me to do so for them.

That said, I would encourage people to post their ballots here if they choose. It will only make for more discussion.

[jcrmoon42]

PMs have been sent to Phoenix and Omaha, both of whom have visited here in the last few days. I'm going to wait to hear from them. Just had a player jump into first place for the first time since the ballot came out. The last ballots will be crucial.

[jcrmoon42]

Still waiting on Phoenix and Omaha! Come on, Fellas! I know you are here! Votes will be collected until the end of the Landis series.