Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

[dac]

Originally Posted by Piss Me Off

An improvement to my idea of having a recommended album added to the nomination so peeps can check the artist out:

It's a good idea but a week isn't enough hindsight to properly delve into an artist and decide their fate HOF wise. Howabout i start announcing who shall be nominated next as i receive them so people can prepare with some listening, and i'll provide uploads through PM?

That sounds like a good idea, but make sure to make it known that there should be no discussing of that artist in this forum until they are actually up for nomination.

[Piss Me Off]

Of course. They'll be in the first post anyway so i doubt noobs will will see them in the first place.

[4ZZZ]

When The Beach did not get nominated I delved bit further into the why's and wherefores as to why artists were or were not selected and come to the conclusion that this is just an exercise in popularity. Thats OK but to me personally it just means that it is all a bit meaningless.

[Mojo]

I cant think of a way to really improve this at hand but I agree that so far the criteria has proven itself to be somewhat inconsistent. So far weve had members:

1)Voting yes based purely on influence, even if they dont like the artist up for nomination.

2) Voting no even though they do like the artist up for nomination because they think they werent influential enough .

3)Voting either way even though they don't know anything about the artist.

I'm just basing mine on my own personal music collection. If I like the artist I vote yes, if I don't I vote no. Regardless of how much of an influence this artist may have been. In this case I have a Chuck Berry greatest hits CD and thats it so I'm refraining from voting either way because I don't feel I know enough to even contribute towards this nomination. Surely thats better left up to members of this board who know enough to either credit or discredit the man.

Maybe taking influence into account in the future is a good idea, I dont know, I'm acknowledging that someone may be able to present a case to me about that but if were voting based mainly on how influential artists are then surely we could just write this Hall of Fame up now without even throwing it open to the boards?

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by 4ZZZ

When The Beach did not get nominated I delved bit further into the why's and wherefores as to why artists were or were not selected and come to the conclusion that this is just an exercise in popularity. Thats OK but to me personally it just means that it is all a bit meaningless.

I kind of feel the same way. If the polls are just about voting personal preference why bother calling this a hall of fame? It should just be called "MB's favorite artists" or something. The term "hall of fame" implies something that is more about the artists' impact on music than about simply popularity.

[Mojo]

Yes but this isnt the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, its OUR Hall of Fame. We can have in it whoever we want. When we start using influence as deciding factors then surely we could just make a huge list right now of a large number of artists who are in and not even bother asking people for opinions? I dont know, it just seems to me that if thats the case then for the likes of The Beatles this was just a waste of time, may as well have just put them in and moved onto the next one. That could go for a lot of artists.

I understand people thinking the exact opposite as well however. It's clearly gonna divide opinions as to what the criteria is that we should consider. Maybe influence should be a part of it but how big a part I don't know. Too little and we start kicking out Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, The Beatles etc to put what in their place exactly? Too much and a lot of the time it barely seems worthwhile asking for anyones opinions.

As I said, I cant really offer a suggestion as the way I personally think it should be done to avoid this so I'm certainly not saying I am right or I am wrong, it's just opinion.

[Janszoon]

Right it's not the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame so (a) we don't have to limit ourself to just rock-related music and (b) we can can vote in the artists that we feel have had an impact on music. If it's just about the most popular artists on MB we should get rid of the ten year old debut album criteria and re-christen the thread "MB's Favorite Musicians".

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Seems to me that there are severe double standards regarding the HOF. Many people who don't like certain bands have said no and that's all fine but when bands they like or admire get negativity it's a shit storm. Everyone should be entitled to their own choice regardless of what others think. quite a few said no to my rec: Pink Floyd without decent explanations. Didn't bother me. It's about a choice. Robert Johnson is possibly the most influential musician on modern music. Would he get in? Would he balls. Because within the MB listening criteria he isn't heard all that much and therefore not deemed worthy. it doesn't mean he isn't important. It's a reflection of MB and it's difference to other generic forums.

Although it would be extremely painstaking I think this should be restarted with stricter criteria

Ok then, with that point let's make the point simple, make the official criteria "your own personal preference". Even though that's not the criteria I was using, I'll gladly use it if that's the one everyone else agrees to use. I just want us to pick one and one only.

The problem is half vote for personal preference, and the other half vote for the same reason as I do. That creates a conflict of interests and an inconsistant hall of fame.

There's no consistency, if you're right that this is supposed to refect the forums point of view, then people who vote based on influence are ruining everything and costing artists that would normally get in based on popular opinion to fail to even get nominated, as well as getting artists unpopular on MB inducted based on their impact. If it was just established (required would be a better word) that you vote for who you like and no other reason, that's how I would have voted, and probably a lot of other people who are not too stupid to read the first page.

If it's decided that personal opinion is the criteria that should be used then that'll be the one I'll use from now on. But it means there should be no tolerance for people voting against an artist because "they're not influencial enough" if that's entirely against the point of this HOF.

And since you make a good point, then maybe we should make it clear that if you vote, vote for who you like and that's it, no bullsh*tting, trying to make it any more complicated or convoluted than that.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Ok then, with that point let's make the point simple, make the official criteria "your own personal preference". Even though that's not the criteria I was using, I'll gladly use it if that's the one everyone else agrees to use. I just want us to pick one and one only.

The problem is half vote for personal preference, and the other half vote for the same reason as I do. That creates a conflict of interests and an inconsistant hall of fame.

There's no consistency, if you're right that this is supposed to refect the forums point of view, then people who vote based on influence are ruining everything and costing artists that would normally get in based on popular opinion to fail to even get nominated, as well as getting artists unpopular in MB to get inducted based on their impact. If it was just established (required would be a better word) that you vote for who you like and no other reason, that's how I would have voted, and probably a lot of other people who are not too stupid to read the first page.

If it's decided that personal opinion is the criteria that should be used then that'll be the one I'll use from now on. But it means there should be no tolerance for people voting against an artist because "they're not influencial enough" if that's entirely against the point of this HOF.

And since you make a good point, then maybe we should make it clear that if you vote, vote for who you like and that's it, no bullsh*tting, trying to make it any more complicated or convoluted than that.

To me pretty much everything about the rules laid out in the first post of this thread seem to indicate this is not supposed to be simply a popularity contest. The fact that the nominees have to have a debut album more than ten years old and the fact the person who nominates a band is supposed to make their case both imply that's more about impact and influence. I mean if you're just supposed to vote based on personal preference how are you supposed to make a case for the band, "I like them so you should vote for them"? And why have the time constraints? Can't my favorite band be newer than ten years old?

[Piss Me Off]

I don't like the 10 year rule myself, i'd rather get rid of it since i think if you want to bring influence into it there's a few bands in the last 10 years who have had influence as well.