rrnate wrote:[Butterfield] is terrible because I SAY SO. One day, all of you shorts-wearing blues farts will be gone from the earth and my people will gladly finish the denigration and erasure of shit like Paul Butterfield, John Mayall, Eric Clapton, etc.
The Jazz Times are also terrible. So are you Henry Vilas, when it comes to musical opinions.
I'd like to thank rnate for ushering us into the tautological phase of the discussion! While I generally agree with him about Mayall and Clapton, I don't agree about Butterfield. But this, too, is just opinion. Most music fans know about the folk purists booing Dylan's early forays into electric music (there's at least one book about it and whether or not the Newport reaction was really as negative as it's sometimes portrayed), but before that there was a good bit of indignation on the part of blues purists when Muddy Waters switched to a more urban, electric form of the blues (probably more properly known as R&B). I was just reading about how the English audiences were a little surprised and chagrined when Muddy and crew arrived in the UK for the first time wearing shiny suits and conked hair. Their English fans apparently expected bib overalls, brogans, and acoustic blues. Tastes change over the years, even for purists.
I think Butterfield belongs in the R&RHoF, but I also think Peter Tosh, Bunny Wailer, and Lee 'Scratch' Perry belong in it. If Bob Marley's in the R&RHoF, then reggae is a part of rock & roll. No reggae, no dub, no hip-hop. But the R&RHoF isn't about what you and I think, it's about glitz, $$$, and what Jann Wenner thinks.
And if the Moody Blues get in, I won't need to keep coming up with excuses not to accompany Mrs. Scratch to the Hall so that she can pay homage to the Beatles (and especially Sir Paul. Yuck).
Hey, wait. Henry and Gentle Man, you don't want Blues Traveler in, too, do you? Now I'm just getting paranoid.
And what about Can?