|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2005 16:54:12 GMT -5
No profanity. It simply isn't necessary. Halls of fame are so subjective that controversy is inevitable. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, but he's been enshrined in Canton. Pittsburgh's Bill Mazeroski was finally enshrined in Cooperstown a few years ago. So how do you determine who goes in? Sometimes it's sheer numbers. Marino put up some big numbers in his day. Sometimes it's being a sentimental favorite. Maz never put up huge numbers, but he was a Gold Glove All-Star who was consistent over his career. So how do you determine who goes into the R&R HOF? Sheer numbers, breaking new horizons, musicianship, sentimentality? These factors and more all figure into the decision. Ultimately, a vote amongst peers will determine if the Carpenters are enshrined in Cleveland or not, but in the end it really doesn't matter. You know Dave I must agree as far as I am concerned being in thr R&R HOF does not change what the Carpenters are to me, it does not change their influence and it does not change their talent and great quality music its just a nice acolade to add to their repetoire and though I do hope they get in I will live if they don't. Cam well said friend! Not paying attention to those who seek attention is the best way to deal with posters like this person. that and putting in safetys so that people like him cannot do dammage to others. There is free speech but there is also responsibility that comes with it.   |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Henry on Aug 26, 2005 18:40:26 GMT -5
No profanity. It simply isn't necessary. So how do you determine who goes into the R&R HOF? Sheer numbers, breaking new horizons, musicianship, sentimentality? These factors and more all figure into the decision. Ultimately, a vote amongst peers will determine if the Carpenters are enshrined in Cleveland or not, but in the end it really doesn't matter. You are so right Dave in the end it doesn't really matter. Because it will not change history. Whether or not C's are in the RRHOF what they have accomplished will remain. I feel confident in saying that Carpenters music will always have it's place in the history books of popular music.  |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Aug 26, 2005 18:50:47 GMT -5
Just thought I'd brighten up this dreary thread with a new pic I did for ya'll:  Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Henry on Aug 26, 2005 20:30:03 GMT -5
Just thought I'd brighten up this dreary thread with a new pic I did for ya'll: Enjoy! Yes, wonderful picture. Thanks for posting it Marc. it looks like the pic on the cover of the 1976 People magazine article. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Aug 26, 2005 20:57:27 GMT -5
Just thought I'd brighten up this dreary thread with a new pic I did for ya'll: Enjoy! Yes, wonderful picture. Thanks for posting it Marc. it looks like the pic on the cover of the 1976 People magazine article. I'm not sure of the origin of the original photo, although it does seem to be around '76. I edited this Readers Digest 1997 release: www.grantguerrero.com/carpenters/readersdigest.jpg to get the resulting pic. I always find myself editing poor Rich out of the pictures. I wonder why...? |
|
|
|
Post by smoothie2 on Aug 26, 2005 22:54:37 GMT -5
???Yes, thanks Marc...what a superb picture!!
|
|
|
|
Post by BethMosior on Aug 27, 2005 0:10:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ming on Aug 27, 2005 9:43:17 GMT -5
Yes, the picture is nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by YesterdayOnceMore on Aug 29, 2005 9:53:27 GMT -5
 Yes, thanks for providing the photo. At the end of the day, as many of you have said, I know in my heart that Carpenters have left a legacy that will endure. I'm content with that. I have my own feelings about the RRHOF, but the bottom line is this - Carpenters were a powerful, influencing force to be rekoned with. They have provided some incredible music, and were two very talented, superb musicians. Richard continues to inspire; Karen's legacy is immortal. I'm just glad we had them in our musical world during my lifetime. Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by JIM on Sept 2, 2005 20:08:05 GMT -5
Hi Joe;
I know that I have been way out of the loop lately due to a family crisis. I just have one questione. If you had to name one attribute of RR that sets it apart from all styles of music, what would it be? I think that Dave's example of music from that era really sums up how varied and dynamic RR really is. I in no way wish invite confrontation but this is something that has always perplexed me. I know that there were many times that the C's would lip sync but on the same token even the most heavy metal band out there has had to go unplugged for a TV apperance for not wanting to risk a less then performance. I am not am not an expert on who has made the RRHF and if I am wrong please correct me. ELO was one of the 70's most hit producing RR bands from that era, yet to me they were every bit as perfectionistic as the C's. I just can't see how a group that held chart status on Billboards RR for nearly a decade could be overlooked, it just seems a bit biased but then so do I. So foregive me for defending my beloved C's. Still I would love to know what makes a song truly RR and what criteria are needed to diqualify it from the category. I really am qurious and I although this is my first post in quite a while, I am really a nice guy and enjoy a debate even if I am completely wrong. I think you need to sign up as a member so you can become part of the Carpenter Collective. (Dave)
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by GoodOldDreams on Nov 30, 2005 15:20:45 GMT -5
Personally, I wouldn't let something like THAT bother you. We live in a land of free speech, whether or not we like it. I am glad we live in countries like that. Canada...USA...etc. Not everyone will agree with our admiration for the Carpenters. And I don't have a problem saying to others if I like or dislike a music artist...my perogative...like, if I say, I can't STAND Brittney Spears...or can't stand RAP...or hate R&B...I am entitled to say that. So, we shouldn't be making a big deal of it, in my opinion...that's life...is my feeling. Just delete if you can, and move on... My thoughts, Cam Cam, you are so right. I agree with everything you have to say here. We are all entitled to our opinions. Although when it's on a public document which children will also be viewing and the person is using profanity and also making vulgar comments about a person's health, life or death - somehow that just does not seem right. Hi Rick, As a recently-joined member, I am beginning to see how this history all fits together with another current discussion thread (the detractor in "Happy Thanksgiving"). The fact the detractor is aggressively trying to bend and twist a forum to vent her off-topic, incoherent rantings shows that she does not have the capability to think clearly or logically, has no sense of common decency and courtesy, and therefore doesn't deserve the trust and respect you gave unconditionally to all at the outset. Rick, you absolutely don't deserve the irresponsible and immature stunts this questionable character dishes out, but obviously can't take herself. Keep up your great work! |
|
|
|
Post by GoodOldDreams on Nov 30, 2005 15:27:58 GMT -5
... BUT I guess what I mean to say, is that if we add FUEL to a person's fire...it adds to a big FIRE...but if we just leave it be...the fire will DIE out... My thoughts, Cam Hi Cam, What an appropriate metaphor... I was going to use as analogy the psycho-pathological profile of a pyromaniac, who feels so empty and insignificant deep down in his/her own private life that he/she feels an obsessive and compulsive need to get a temporary sense of "gratification" by trying to destroy everyone and everything in his/her wake in order to make himself/herself feel noticed, important and powerful, however delusional. Currently there is a rising trend in what is now called "cyber bullying" and "cyber terrorism," and these disturbed, deeply-afflicted individuals who cannot find anything else more constructive to do with their time desperately need to get professional help and counseling --- the sooner the better! |
|
|
|
Post by GoodOldDreams on Nov 30, 2005 18:12:56 GMT -5
Hi folks, I think you are being selective as to who you want to listen to. I think the Carpenters most definitely do not belong on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They are not rock and roll, PERIOD. I am not using profanity, and I do not agree with you. Please do not censor me. Rock and roll is a state of mind - raw emotions. The Carpenters were bent on being perfect. They even pre-recorded live music, just so it would sount perfect. They were not spontaneous. Please people, they were very good at what they did, very well-crafted POP. NOT ROCK. While I think people should not use profanity or confuse anorexia with the real issue, the fact is that the Carpenters are not in the same league as rock musicians. The Carpenters were in a league of their own, POP. Bless you Karen! Later, JD Hi Joe, You sound like a guy with a reasonably open mind who tries to present your opposing views through rational debate. However, you cannot be knowingly condoning and defending a detractor who is bent on trashing an entire website by flooding its discussion threads and petition for recognition of musical merits with profanity and irrelevant banter to defeat their original intents. That unprovoked hate-mongering accomplishes nothing constructive, and the cry of "censorship" rings very hollow when the detractor tries to disrupt and destroy the very same mechanisms that all people in this forum use to express themselves in the first place. Talk about utmost hypocrisy! The are some points I would like to address in your earnest posting. According to Wikipedia:
"Rock and roll (also spelt rock 'n' roll, especially in its first decade), is a genre of music that emerged as a defined musical style in American South in the 1950s, and quickly spread to the rest of the country, and the world. It later evolved into the various different sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock'. As a result, "rock and roll" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional rock and roll in the 1950s style, or later rock and even pop music which may be very far from traditional rock and roll."
Like other genres of music such as jazz, which very broadly encompasses Dixieland, big band, lounge, smooth, fusion, etc. (which is as American as the "melting pot" as it claims to be), rock and roll has grown and evolved into sub-genres such as hard and soft rock. To quote Wikipedia further:
"Soft rock, also referred to as lite rock, easy rock, and formally mellow rock, is a style of music which uses the techniques of rock and roll to compose a softer, supposedly more ear-pleasing sound for listening, often at work. Soft rock mostly focuses on lyrics and vocals. Instruments can also sometimes play an important role in soft rock, especially the piano."
You seem to think that there is only one form of rock, the "raw" hard kind. Wikipedia acknowledges this debate about rock and roll as follows: "The appropriation of the term "soft" for music which some consider the very antithesis of rock and roll infuriates many of rock music's fans, leading to the following observation: 'Soft rock music isn't rock, and it ain't music. It's just soft.' - George Carlin"
Gee, I didn't realize comic George Carlin was such a prominent expert/media spokesperson for the hard-rock segregationist camp. It seems that the music "experts" at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame implicitly believe that in order to create and maintain a prestigious façade for their institution, they need to uphold a sense of "exclusivity" close to the original roots of rock and roll. Unfortunately, this is just short-sighted and narrow-minded thinking. While the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame recognizes and honors those who contributed to its early influences, who are by definition not "rockers" themselves, it does not do so for what rock and roll itself has spawned. If rock and roll hadn't grown and evolved to other sub-genres as American jazz did, it would have not enjoyed the extent and spectrum of its broad-based support today. Part of the "signature sound" of the Carpenters is the overdubbing of Karen's and Richard's voices into rich harmonies, which inevitably required at least some pre-recorded parts. If Karen and Richard's vocals weren't so wonderfully unique, there would have been no problem in assembling a regular backup chorus that sounded just like them for their live performances. The Carpenters' music transcended any restrictive labeling, although "soft rock" or "adult contemporary" probably come as close as any genre or name that can be applied to their extensive repertoire that includes jazz, folk, country, pop and rock oldies. Not many performers can claim the same breadth and depth in their range of musical styles and talents in composing, arranging, performing and producing. Striving for perfection musically and artistically is no shame --- it is a virtue that deserves to be recognized and honored! |
|
Dave
Ultra Emissary 
"sleeping in the arms of the cosmos..."
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Dave on Nov 30, 2005 21:16:02 GMT -5
From the San Diego newspaper:
What the Hall is going on?
November 29, 2005
We perused this year's just-released Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and thought, has there ever been a weaker Hall of Fame class?
Then we saw this year's entries for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and answered our own question.
Thankfully, we don't have a vote in both or we'd be saddled with decisions like: Albert Belle or Black Sabbath? Gary DiSarcina or Blondie? Walt Weiss or the Sex Pistols?
But seriously folks, why not just skip 2005 and fast forward to 2006, when the Cooperstown class picks up considerable luster (first-year eligibles will include Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn and Mark McGwire).
Along with Belle, Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser and Will Clark, this year's first-timers include Rick Aguilera, Alex Fernandez, Doug Jones, John Wetteland, DiSarcina, Gary Gaetti, Ozzie Guillen, Gregg Jefferies, Hal Morris and Weiss.
The best holdovers are a few notable sluggers -- Jim Rice and Andre Dawson -- and several fine relievers including Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith and Goose Gossage, plus starting pitchers Bert Blyleven, Tommy John and Jack Morris. Also back on the ballot are Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy and Alan Trammell.
Of the returnees, only Rice and Sutter have gotten serious support.
This might be the year nobody is elected. Worse things could happen.
Like having to sit through most of the R'n'R Hall of Fame inductees performing.
As undistinguished as the Cooperstown class is, the Cleveland class if pitiful. The five nominees are Black Sabbath, the Sex Pistols, Miles Davis, Blondie and Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Of that bunch only Davis could be called a truly trailblazing or influential musician, and he's really not about rock 'n' roll.
The Pistols had some influence re-igniting the punk movement; unfortunately, they couldn't really sing or play very well.
Blondie and Lynyrd Skynyrd made some nice records, but c'mon -- the Dave Clark Five had a stronger body of work. So did Herman's Hermits.
Black Sabbath speaks for itself.
Hopefully few voters will speak for them.
Posted by Alan Drooz at November 29, 2005 10:11 PM
So, let's see these "luminaries"...no, I think Ozzy put it to bed.
If they're going to induct Blondie and the Sex Pistols...well, Chic was on the list.
Maybe the Carpenters are just too good for Cleveland?
What difference would it make, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Henry on Nov 30, 2005 22:01:24 GMT -5
Hi folks, I think you are being selective as to who you want to listen to. I think the Carpenters most definitely do not belong on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They are not rock and roll, PERIOD. I am not using profanity, and I do not agree with you. Please do not censor me. Rock and roll is a state of mind - raw emotions. The Carpenters were bent on being perfect. They even pre-recorded live music, just so it would sount perfect. They were not spontaneous. Please people, they were very good at what they did, very well-crafted POP. NOT ROCK. While I think people should not use profanity or confuse anorexia with the real issue, the fact is that the Carpenters are not in the same league as rock musicians. The Carpenters were in a league of their own, POP. Bless you Karen! Later, JD Hi Joe, You sound like a guy with an reasonably open mind who tries to present your opposing views through rational debate. However, you cannot possibly be condoning and defending a detractor who is bent on trashing an entire website by flooding its discussion threads and petition for recognition of musical merits with profanity and irrelevant banter to defeat their original intents. That unprovoked hate-mongering accomplishes nothing constructive, and the cries of "censorship" rings very hollow when the detractor tries to destroy the very same mechanisms for others to express themselves as well. The are some points I would like to address in your earnest posting. According to Wikipedia:
"Rock and roll (also spelt rock 'n' roll, especially in its first decade), is a genre of music that emerged as a defined musical style in American South in the 1950s, and quickly spread to the rest of the country, and the world. It later evolved into the various different sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock'. As a result, "rock and roll" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional rock and roll in the 1950s style, or later rock and even pop music which may be very far from traditional rock and roll."
Like other genres of music such as jazz, which very broadly encompasses Dixieland, big band, lounge, smooth, fusion, etc. (which is as American as the "melting pot" as it claims to be), rock and roll has grown and evolved into sub-genres such as hard and soft rock. To quote Wikipedia further:
"Soft rock, also referred to as lite rock, easy rock, and formally mellow rock, is a style of music which uses the techniques of rock and roll to compose a softer, supposedly more ear-pleasing sound for listening, often at work. Soft rock mostly focuses on lyrics and vocals. Instruments can also sometimes play an important role in soft rock, especially the piano."
You seem to think that there is only one form of rock, the "raw" hard kind. Wikipedia acknowledges this debate about rock and roll as follows: "The appropriation of the term "soft" for music which some consider the very antithesis of rock and roll infuriates many of rock music's fans, leading to the following observation: 'Soft rock music isn't rock, and it ain't music. It's just soft.' - George Carlin"
Gee, I didn't realize comedian George Carlin was such a prominent expert/media spokesperson for the hard-rock segregationist camp. It seems that the music "experts" at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame implicitly believe that in order to create an prestigious image for their institution, they need to uphold a sense of "exclusivity" close to the original roots of rock and roll. Unfortunately, this is very narrow-minded thinking. If rock and roll hadn't grown and evolved to other sub-genres as American jazz did, it may have not enjoyed the extent of its broad-based support today. Part of the "signature sound" of the Carpenters is the overdubbing of Karen's and Richard's voices into rich harmonies, which inevitably required at least some pre-recorded parts. If Karen and Richard's vocals weren't so wonderfully unique, there would have been no problem in assembling a regular backup chorus that sounded just like them for their live performances. The Carpenters' music transcended any restrictive labeling, although "soft rock" or "adult contemporary" probably come as close as any genre or name that can be applied to their extensive repertoire that includes jazz, folk, country, pop and rock oldies. Not many performers can claim the same breadth and depth in their range of musical talents. Striving for perfection musically and artistically is no shame --- it is a virtue that deserves to be recognized and honored! Thank you very much GoodOldDreams. You said everything I've wanted to say. The roots from Carpenters' music stems from early rock and roll. and yes is an off-shot of that genre which has come to be known as "Soft Rock". Ceretainly Carpenters are not rock - but there are components of rock music in several of their songs. They have great guitar solos, creative drumwork, pulsating rhythms and synthesizer effects. |
|
