Should Peter Green be in the hall of fame?

[DavidMn]

I was just thinking, what if Peter hadnt had all of those terrible problems with drugs, would he be ine HOF on his own?

[SteveMacD]

I think the fact that Peter's music from '66-'70 is still held in high regards with many musicians, especially guitarists, would have insured his place in the Hall. If he hadn't done all those drugs, he might not have written SOME songs, but I think his musicianship was so great prior to all of that, that if he had stayed clean, and never quit the band, he might have made even BETTER music over a greater period of time. I think the massive success of the "Rumours" band gave new life to his legacy, but it WAS a legacy he earned.

[dino]

IMHO,
hall of fame is silly.
Look at some of the acts that are in there...
Greeny is so highly regarded anyway, especially by fellow
musicians. Think of the MOJO "100 best guitar players" edition
ten years ago, where he was voted third (Hendrix and Steve Cropper
were ahead. And that was from votes by musicians.
Despite not being dead and not having played in 10 years at least (1995)

[mzero]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I was just thinking, what if Peter hadnt had all of those terrible problems with drugs, would he be ine HOF on his own?

d- i don't think the drugs factored in. being cynical about it, pete is in the hall because the rumors band was inducted. would he'd be in otherwise? he didn't sell many records in the us, isn't well connected, and isn't influential enough on modern rock (e.g., velvet underground) to make it as a legacy choice.

but as dino points out, the standards for being inducted are not based on anything resembling an objective measure of artistic merit. if it were up to me i'd have put pete in before the rumors band.

i wonder why the hall doesn't consult zero when choosing the inductees?

zero

[David]

Originally Posted by mzero

but as dino points out, the standards for being inducted are not based on anything resembling an objective measure of artistic merit.

Now that's something I'd like to see: an objective measure of artistic merit. By definition, an objective measure is one irrespective of personal taste, preference, inclination, emotions, prejudices: for example, the measure of the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s/s) is an objective measure. It doesn't matter whether you or I or all the Rolling Stone critics like it, hate it, agree with it, disagree with it -- any object in free-fall (affected only by gravity) will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.

So somebody would have to explain to me just how anyone would derive an "objective measure of artistic merit."

[mzero]

Originally Posted by David

Now that's something I'd like to see: an objective measure of artistic merit. By definition, an objective measure is one irrespective of personal taste, preference, inclination, emotions, prejudices: for example, the measure of the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s/s) is an objective measure. It doesn't matter whether you or I or all the Rolling Stone critics like it, hate it, agree with it, disagree with it -- any object in free-fall (affected only by gravity) will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.

So somebody would have to explain to me just how anyone would derive an "objective measure of artistic merit."

d- i know what you are saying. probably you know what i mean as well.

as you have defined 'objective' an 'objective measure of artistic merit' would be near impossible.

however, here's a different one from dictionary.com which isn't so restrictive

"objective

adj 1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"? "

people try to make objective judgements all the time, on juries, as scientific referees, etc. i agree that it isn't easy.

i don't know how you'd elect members of the r&r hof objectively. maybe sample the votes of a very large number of qualified rock and roll musicians. i don't think that is currently how it's done.

zero