Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Rob

Hall Of Fame Winners!!

Recommended Posts

The 90s - Robbie Williams

The 80s - Michael Jackson

The 70s - Queen

The 60s - The Rolling Stones

The 50s - Cliff Richard

Guess which two I think definitely shouldn't have won?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why the british public should never vote on musical topics. They know fuck all about nothing.

especially double negatives, and how they don't not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Main Agent
I feel ashamed to be part of such a pathetic nation

Well I am feeling pretty proud to be a Scot, :):up::)

but I know what you mean about the poll result H. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't get what the big shame is. it's a hall of fame vote. robbie williams is surely the most popular artist of the 90's and i don't think anyone can really argue against michael jackson, queen or the rolling stones. i guess cliff richard is a bit shit but he's had a lasting effect and was surely one of the most popular and successful artists in the 50's as well. yea it woulda been great if the likes of joy division had gotten in but what were the chances and did any of you vote? and it is a hall of FAME not talent or songwriting or anything that means anything but just how popular people are. ignore it and move on is what i say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't get what the big shame is. it's a hall of fame vote. robbie williams is surely the most popular artist of the 90's and i don't think anyone can really argue against michael jackson' date=' queen or the rolling stones. i guess cliff richard is a bit shit but he's had a lasting effect and was surely one of the most popular and successful artists in the 50's as well. yea it woulda been great if the likes of joy division had gotten in but what were the chances and did any of you vote? and it is a hall of FAME not talent or songwriting or anything that means anything but just how popular people are. ignore it and move on is what i say.[/quote']

Exactly! c'mon, it's television, it's just an excuse to make money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the fuck?! he shouldnt even be nominated! Im sure they didnt mention the bloody fact that his older songs were written by Guy Chambers and not him.

What a complete cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbie williams a little twat that needs his head kicked in.

Cliff Richard a bible bashing religious wanker.

Michael Jackson a totally unstable asshole that deserves no mention.

Maddona, Complete tramp and a utter slut.

None of em deserve shit. People who vote for this shit are idiots as they have no musical creativiity. I will never know why this talentless shit will get more votes, it just seems to me that alot of people don't know what true talent is. Take it for example a band like massive attack, they have way more musical know how than all of that shit put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robbie williams a little twat that needs his head kicked in.

Cliff Richard a bible bashing religious wanker.

Michael Jackson a totally unstable asshole that deserves no mention.

Maddona' date=' Complete tramp and a utter slut.

None of em deserve shit. People who vote for this shit are idiots as they have no musical creativiity. I will never know why this talentless shit will get more votes, it just seems to me that alot of people don't know what true talent is. Take it for example a band like massive attack, they have way more musical know how than all of that shit put together.[/quote']

Most people are mediocre, hence mediocrity sells.

Which was pretty fortunate for The Beatles, and EVERY other band/singer in this Hall Of Fame.

You know something, now that every single band I absolutely love isn't in the Hall Of Fame, I've just realised I can no longer like them. I'll have to burn every single CD I own, and since I don't own a single CD by anyof the artists in the Hall Of Fame, I'd better get every single album these people have released. Because this vote makes THAT much difference to my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob

0 difference really eh? It's all just a load of shit, as much as the charts are every week. Forget about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people are mediocre' date=' hence mediocrity sells.

Which was pretty fortunate for The Beatles, and EVERY other band/singer in this Hall Of Fame.[/quote']

Rot. Michael Jackson was NEVER mediocre. Queen? Mediocre?

?(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rot. Michael Jackson was NEVER mediocre. Queen? Mediocre?

?(

Surely you don't think the one with the video with Lisa Marie Presley is a stunning track? :p

Och, anyone could take any of those bands and say to me "how can you say they're mediocre?" but the fact is, I know people who would like all or most of those acts, and these are the type of people whose CD collection is only just bigger than Father Dougal McGuire's. I'm not suggesting that everyone who likes the bands in this Hall Of Fame has little real interest in music, but the fact is these acts are the type that appease "one CD a year" buyers. And I would say the reason is they are bland enough to be liked by lots of people.

Which, to be fair, is why Robbie Williams is in the thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people are mediocre' date=' hence mediocrity sells.

Which was pretty fortunate for The Beatles, and EVERY other band/singer in this Hall Of Fame.[/quote']

Surely you don't think the one with the video with Lisa Marie Presley is a stunning track? :p

There's a difference in being a mediocre artist and recording a few duff tracks though surely?

I'm not suggesting that everyone who likes the bands in this Hall Of Fame has little real interest in music' date=' but the fact is these acts are the type that appease "one CD a year" buyers. And I would say the reason is they are bland enough to be liked by lots of people.[/quote']

Or talented enough to be appreciated by 'real music fans AND 'one CD a year' buyers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a difference in being a mediocre artist and recording a few duff tracks though surely?

Totally agree' date=' can anyone think of an artist that has never recorded a bad track ?

Or talented enough to be appreciated by 'real music fans AND 'one CD a year' buyers?

Yep, Queen are one of the all time great bands, as are the Beatles, whether you like them or think their music is overated is a different story but no-one on the planet can deny the influence these bands have had in shaping the music scene as it is today.

Cheers

Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree' date=' can anyone think of an artist that has never recorded a bad track ?[/quote']

Morrissey, actually thats a lie..... :help:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robbie williams a little twat that needs his head kicked in.

...None of em deserve shit. People who vote for this shit are idiots as they have no musical creativiity. I will never know why this talentless shit will get more votes' date=' [/quote']

While I agree that the choices were "off", I would disagree about saying that the likes of Queen and Robbie Williams are talentless. Robbie Williams is an attention seeking cock yes, but the bastard can fucking sing. Just listen to "Swing when you're winning" for proof of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'bastard' can sing, but then go and watch the Knebworth gigs, he absloutely owned the stage... And Queen... In my opinion were rightful winners for their decade. Cliff Richard... Well you cant really argue... Just see how many records this man has put out... he's just another person we just love to hate... But I can see exactly why he won it.

I think the choices may seem off, but I can see exactly why people can justify voting the way they did... Its a crazy premise anyway... Ideally you would need a least a top 30 for each decade to make it anywhere near fair and reasonable... there are even bands that you and me could class as heavily influential, or oozing with quality, but its an opinion... And we cant all think alike...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the fuck?! he shouldnt even be nominated! Im sure they didnt mention the bloody fact that his older songs were written by Guy Chambers and not him.

What a complete cunt.

shut the fuck up camie. they were co written!

you can't argue with popularity...well you could...but you'd be wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but the fact is these acts are the type that appease "one CD a year" buyers. And I would say the reason is they are bland enough to be liked by lots of people.

Which' date=' to be fair, is why Robbie Williams is in the thing.[/quote']

I'd just like to pose the question, How many other artists could display the skills that Brian May did? He was playing with the same skill and passion as he did over thirty years ago. There are few artists that can match him on skill, and few that can keep the flame burning as bright for so long as he has. Queen are not bland.

As for Mr Williams, he was in one of the biggest bands of the Nineties (even if no-one wants it to be true!) and has since gone on to be one of the most popular solo artists. I think he has had eight number ones. I say good on him, and I don't even care for his music. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...