It's basically become, "All music."Īll time great TV show seems not even worth going after in any reasonable fashion. I love the diversity, but it's getting into apples/oranges comparisons. They include older bands and younger bands, "rock" and "rap." Look at some of the nominees who didn't make it this year. The problem is that this Hall doesn't know what it's doing. Most musicians and bands release their first album before the age of 25, which means that, at worst, they are looking at induction before the age of 50. Kate Bush (for example) has been eligible since 2003.īut that's the issue, isn't it? It's not the time. The Zombies' first release was in 1965- they've been eligible since 1990. The R&R Hall of Fame has a lot of issues, but the 25 years isn't one of them. You wouldn't want to emulate the Rock and Roll Hall of fame in any way? What about the ability to have Prince (RIP) solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps while Tom Petty (RIP) can't believe it? Plot and characters taking action shows development characters rehashing what we've already seen is clip review episode without the clips. And inevitably, someone on the internet will tell you that you just aren't appreciating the "character development". It's like opening a bag of chips and finding out that the top 50% of the bag is air.
When a serialized show like Walking Dead or The 100 has a filler episode, you literally get a bunch of characters sitting on a set, just talking about stuff we've already seen. It's like the rice/potato/carb to a hearty meal it's not filler, it's the base. You might even get a second-run character getting a day in the limelight out of it, or some fun trivia or minor backstory to explore. A nice, self contained problem, which a solution in the same episode. But when you get right down to it, those episodes are what the core or those shows are really about. When an episodic show like ST:TNG or X-Files had a "filler" episode, we got a monster-of-the-week or ship-in-a-bottle episode.
Serialized stories lead to some of the most boring filler-filled shows I have ever experienced. It is certainly possible to have scandals come up in those additional years that lead to a moral/political re-evalution, but what role that should play in evaluating someone's Hall of Fame worthiness in any field of endeavor is a whole nother question. But a 25 year requirement doesn't help acts that require later reevaluation, it is a restraint on inducting ones that at one point seem great but later prove otherwise, and I just don't know who the musical act is that at a more reasonable 15 years after their first release seemed Hall of Fame worthy but later in the following ten years produced music that not only was not great but also somehow proved that their previous music was not great and that they, as musicians, were, in fact, never great. Sometimes it does take a quarter century or more for a group to be appreciated and recognized (2019 inductees the Zombies are a recent exemplar of a group that, while not exactly obscure in their own day, had minimal commercial and only marginally better critical success but then had their reputation rightfully grow over subsequent decades). While the 25 year waiting period is not the most obnoxious practice of theirs by far, it still seems unduly long (and given the lifestyle choices of many musicians encourages far too many postumous inductions). I was onboard with what you were saying until you invoked the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which should not be emulated in any way in any context.
0 kommentar(er)
