Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees Announced.

The short list of nominees to be part of the 2012 induction class was announced, and quite a list it is (Percentages per Future Rock Legends):

Beastie Boys
Current Induction Chances: 82%

The Cure
Current Induction Chances: 57%

Donovan
Current Induction Chances: 11%

Eric B. & Rakim
Current Induction Chances: 41%

Guns N' Roses
Current Induction Chances: 76%

Heart
Current Induction Chances: 17%

Joan Jett & the Blackhearts
Current Induction Chances: 16%

Freddie King
Current Induction Chances: 5%

Laura Nyro
Current Induction Chances: 31%

Red Hot Chili Peppers
Current Induction Chances: 64%

Rufus with Chaka Khan
Current Induction Chances: 10%

The Small Faces / The Faces
Current Induction Chances: 33%

The Spinners
Current Induction Chances: 8%

Donna Summer
Current Induction Chances: 56%

War
Current Induction Chances: 30%

Two of the three potential nominees I spoke of in July are on the list--no-brainer Guns N' Roses and surprise pick Eric B. and Rakim. The only one of the acts first eligible this year that could be possibly considered a slight would be the exclusion of Soundgarden. But not much of one.

This list will be whittled down to five inductees. Trying to decide who will be inducted is a fun game, because the Rock Hall voting committee is notoriously mercurial in their selection process. Here is my handicap of the list, breaking it down to "In," "Possibly In," "Most Likely Out" and "Out".

1. Beastie Boys: IN: You could make the argument that the Beasties should have been a first ballot inductee, but this is their third nomination. Why the delay? Well, you become eligible for induction 25 years after your first recorded release. This could be albums, singles or EPs. The Beasties put out a number of singles/EPs before their breakout album, Licensed to Ill, which is why they were nominated so early. Conventional wisdom state that the voters would wait until 25 years after Licensed to Ill to induct them. That just happens to be this year.
2. The Cure: MOST LIKELY OUT: They are deserving, but this is their first nomination in their eight years of eligibility. That usually indicates they will not be inducted now, but possibly in the future. Also, the fact that other similar acts such as The Smiths, Bauhaus and Joy Division that many think are equally if not more deserving than The Cure have yet to be nominated might affect the voters' choice in the matter.
3. Donovan: MOST LIKELY OUT: This is his second nod in consecutive years. His induction might come in a weaker year, but not in this one. He is just over the boundary of being included, in my opinion, and that typically means he will make way for more worthy candidates.
4. Eric B. & Rakim: OUT: Not that they are not worthy. They are (and the nominating committee should get credit for recognizing that fact) but they are behind a long line of rap artists who are just as deserving to get in. The Rock Hall, for some reason, believes that rap artists have to be made to wait. You figure the Beasties this year, past nominees Afrika Bambaataa and LLCool J in the future, then Eric B & Rakim would go into consideration. If these guys jump the line, it just wouldn't make sense.
5. Guns N' Roses: IN: The only way GN'R won't get in is if the voters are trying to make some sort of a statement. But they are the strongest of all the nominees--they're influential, they're innovative, and there is built-in drama surrounding whether or not all the original members will attend the induction ceremony. Can't see them not getting in.
6. Heart: OUT: A lot of articles about this list seem to indicate that the Wilson sisters are a shoo-in for the Hall. I don't think so. This is their first nod in over ten years of eligibility, and it's hard to get in when that happens. I think their change from hard rock band to anthemic arena rock band in the 80s will do more harm than good. But the most damning thing against them is that they are nominated the same year as...
7. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts: POSSIBLY IN: Personally, I think this band has a better chance of getting in. Jett is more of the legendary name in rock and roll, she has a load of history and even a film made about her (and her fellow Runaways). And the Blackhearts were more of a visceral rock band. They don't have the same late career switch to anthemic rock that Heart does. However, this is also their first nomination in seven years of eligibility. That is what doesn't make them a definite. The Hall is focusing in on women this year, which means both could be inducted. Or neither. But if only one is, I think it will be the Blackhearts.
8. Freddie King: OUT: He was definitely an influential and innovative blues musician, but there are contemporaries of his (Albert King, Albert Collins) that are not in. This is his first nod in over 30 years of eligibility.
9. Laura Nyro: POSSIBLY IN: She might not be well known, but this is her third consecutive nomination in her 30 years of eligibility. Obviously, the Hall likes her, or else she wouldn't get these nods, so I think this year will be her year.
10. Red Hot Chili Peppers: IN: This is another band that should have been a first ballot HOFer. I don't know why they weren't. But in this group, they are one of the strongest contenders. They also have an album out and intrigue about who will be up there to accept the induction. 
11. Rufus with Chaka Khan: MOST LIKELY OUT:
12. The Small Faces/The Faces: MOST LIKELY OUT: The combination of both incarnations of the band does give them an edge, but this might not be the year for them to get in, though they eventually will.
13. The Spinners: OUT: It is a long shot that they get in at all, let alone this year. But if they do, it will be the surprise of all surprises. Because if any R&B act from the 70s will be inducted, it will be...
14. Donna Summer: IN: This is her fourth nomination, and ever since Madonna got in, it was only a matter of time. And I think that time is now.
15. War: OUT:  This is their second nod, but I see them as being on the fence. Maybe in a weaker year, but I find it unlikely they will be in this year.

Movie: Super 8

Super 8 is super great!

Okay, I couldn't resist the pun. But the film is great. It excels on a number of levels.

Set in 1979, the story is about a group of kids who are shooting a DIY horror flick. One night, they sneak out of their houses at midnight to film at the local train station. As they are filming, they witness the local science teacher run his car into an oncoming train, causing a massive train wreck. The kids barely survive the experience and soon find out that the teacher wasn't trying to kill himself, he was trying to free something on the train. Something particularly nasty. And the worst part about it, the teacher was successful. A monster is let loose in the town, and chaos begins.

The film works as really good fright film. It also works as an homage to the works of Steven Spielberg (who produced the film). It also works as a display of the love of film making and the technical aspects that go into it.

J.J. Abrams knows how to work the camera and manipulate the audiences. The film is scary with out being overly gory. It gets its shocks from lulling the audience into expecting one thing and then delivering another. Abrams also uses a trick that Spielberg employed in Jaws when he only gives us a full view of the monster when he absolutely has to. Typically, he keeps the monster in the shadows, showing only the after effects of his carnage. This increases suspense and keeps the audience on its toes.

The film is a love letter to early Spielberg in other ways too. From the types of shots he uses, to the way he celebrates small town/suburban life, to the way he keeps an emotional core in all of his films, all of that Abrams uses in this film. And he does a fine job of it.

And the film is also a display of  the love of film making. The kids are so passionate about the film they are creating that they are willing to risk anything for it--death, dismemberment, grounding--to get it finished. This allows the film to act as a meta commentary on itself. When the director of the film< Charles (Riley Griffiths) tells our lead, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) that he is introducing the detective's wife into the film because that will make the audience care about the zombie film's characters more, we are reminded that we are watching a young man in Joe Lamb who is still grieving from the loss of his mother months prior. And because we feel for his sorrow, we care about him more.

The acting is top notch all the way through. Instead of going the superstar route, Abrams when with solid actors with a modicum of being recognizable. Since he has actors who are able to disappear in the role, this draws the audience in. And actors like Kyle Chandler can tell more of a story with his facial expression after an argument than most actors can with pages of dialogue.

The film is set in 1979 by design. In the present day, in a world of smart phone that can shoot video, and digital recorders that can film faster and more immediate than Super 8 film, the story would not have time to develop as it does. Back in the dark ages of the late 70s, when a rush film development job took three days, you have more time for the subplots and chaos to develop. They stay pretty close to period, with some anachronisms here and there (one of the kids references a Rubik's Cube when the toy hadn't arrived on American shores until the next year and didn't become a crazy until a year or two after) but the tone they create is palpable and real.

There are some unanswered questions we are meant to suspend belief on (like how the science teacher, even considering he might have military connections, know that the monster was going to be transported on THAT train at THAT time). But all in all, the film is a great movie. And one you should go see,

My Ruminations About the Possible 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Candidates.

It's been a while since I blogged about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but that doesn't mean I am any less fascinated by it. We are still a couple months away from the nominations, but I thought I'd be proactive and rant about it now.

What makes the the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame so fascinating--what makes all Hall of Fame fascinating--is not who's in but who's not in and why.

If you judge strictly buy the name, any musical act that has sold a certain number of albums and has a certain number of fans in their fan club should be in the Rock Hall. But it isn't truly about "fame". The Rock Hall organizers say acts need to be "influential" and "innovative" to be inducted the Hall. They also ignore these qualifications almost immediately. Because you don't get much more influential or innovative than Rush and KISS, Peter Gabriel or The Replacements, the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Beastie Boys, yet none of them are in the hall. Few have even made the nomination short list.

The Rock Hall has been in remedial housecleaning mode the last few years. The five inductees last year--Alice Cooper, Neil Diamond, Darlene Love, Dr. John and Tom Waits--have had an average wait on the eligibility list of 16.8 years. That's over a decade and a half wait to get in. Waits had it fairly easy. He only had to wait 11 years. Diamond and Love were on the waiting list for 21 years!

This is another irksome quality about the Hall of Fame--the hierarchy of the hall induction. If you are a special artist, maybe, maybe, you'll get in on your first year of eligibility. If not, you'll have to wait until they deem you worthy of entry. The Baseball Hall of Fame does the same thing. You hear baseball writers say "He's not good enough to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Maybe next year." I figure if he worthy of being in the Hall of Fame at all, he worthy of being in the Hall on the first try. But that's just me.

It seems silly to call out any Hall of Fame as being too elitist--it is a Hall of Fame after all. But the Rock Hall is especially elitist. The nomination board is composed mostly of rock journalists, pretentious group that they are, and music executives who let their biases speak for themselves. I've seen a quote from one board member, it might have been Rolling Stone's Anthony DeCurtis, where he said he'd rather die than vote for KISS. That's nice.

It doesn't help that while they nominate eleven acts, they only elect five. This does create a false air of prestige for induction to the Hall, but pretty much guarantees that every year some worthy acts are left out.

This is the list of possible eligibles for 2011-2012 from Future Rock Legends.com:

American Music Club

Babyface

Belinda Carlisle

Bob Geldof

Bobby Brown

BoDeans

Bonfire

Boredoms

Bruce Hornsby and the Range

Cinderella

Concrete Blonde

Cowboy Junkies

Cro-Mags

Crowded House

Dag Nasty

David & David

Dwarves

Dweezil Zappa

Eric B. & Rakim

Fields of the Nephilim

Glass Tiger

Gregory Abbott

Guided By Voices

Guns N' Roses

The Jayhawks

Kool Moe Dee

The Lemonheads

Los Fabulosos Cadillacs

Lyle Lovett

Matthew Sweet

The Melvins

Michelle Shocked

The Mission

New Kids On The Block

Poison

Racer X

Roxette

Salt N Pepa

Samantha Fox

Schooly D

The Sharks

Soundgarden

Spacemen 3

Tesla

They Might Be Giants

Throwing Muses

Vince Dicola

World Party

Yanni

Yo La Tengo

The size of the font indicate who visitors to the site think have the best chance of being inducted into the Hall. Arguably, Guns 'N Roses does have the best chance to get a nomination, with perhaps Soundgarden as a longshot. Eric B. and Rakim are deserving, the Hall is a couple years behind on inducting rap stars into the Hall. They'll have to get in line behind Beastie Boys and LL Cool J.

So, this year should be another housekeeping year. Will those two make it in? Will Rush finally get nominated? We'll find out in the fall.

I'm back and will try to post more often!

R.I.P. Steven J. Cannell

The Rockford Files. The Greatest American Hero. Hunter. Hardcastle and McCormick. The A-Team. Riptide. Wiseguy. 21 Jump Street. The Commish.

These were all TV shows that helped form my childhood and my young adulthood. Stephen J. Cannell had a hand in all of them.

Stephen Cannell died yesterday from complications from melanoma. He was 69.

Rest in peace. And thanks for all the memories.

Vote Democratic or Your Kids Will Read Dumb, Stupid Comic Books!

NK-ED-pg-31-570x413

So, a piece of news is making the rounds today. Nancy King, a State Senator in Maryland, sent around a flyer to her constituents, seen above co-opted from Bleeding Cool, which seems to indicate that if she is not elected, teachers in Maryland will be laid off and the students will become booger-eating, comic book reading morons.

Of course, this has outraged a lot of people in the comic book community, notably Dean Trippe and Peter David. And it has irked me a bit, so I felt the need to comment.

I don't know why I'm so upset. This is just a boneheaded politician doing a boneheaded advertising campaign. Looking at pictures of Ms. King, I'm pretty sure the chances of her every reading a comic book are very remote. Just looking at the choice of reading material the kids have their hands on shows how out of touch they are. I'm sure the campaign took $5 out of petty cash to go buy a boatload of comic at the local comic shop only to find that $5 really won't get you much. That Superman comic cost $5 on its own (well, $4.99). The other two "comics" are a free preview issue for an upcoming X-Men arc dealing with vampires, so that didn't cost anything. The other "comic"? That's Marvel Previews, Marvel's catalog. It isn't even a comic. It is a list of all the comics Marvel is offering three months from now. And while it is priced at $1.25, many comic shops give it away for free. I mean, when it comes to King's purposes, it serves its purpose because it kinda looks like a comic book. But still. 

But the idea that comic books are only read by uneducated buffoons is a stereotype I thought we had grown out of. In the 50s, this image of an adult comic book fan was prevalent. However, over time, an image of a more intelligent, if socially awkward, comic reader has taken its place (see: The Big Bang Theory).

Regardless, critics have come to appreciate the literary content of comic books. Time named Watchmen, a comic book, as one of the 100 Greatest Novels of the last 100 years. Colleges offer graphic novels as part of their curriculum. I have been assigned Maus and Persepolis as part of my college readings. Some states even have initiatives where they use comic books to promote literacy. States like, say, King's home state of Maryland.

But a look at the interior of the flyer might indictate King had something different in mind:

Teachers-570x216

See? Maybe the point she was trying to make was that when the teachers are laid off, the kids will be left unattended in a school room! The real studious ones will be reading comics!

And is it just me, or are there a wide variety of ages in this classroom. Maybe one room schoolhouses never went out of style in Maryland! Yes, just like on Little House on the Prairie, kids from different grades side on one room to undergo some book learnin' after all their chorin' is done!

Anyway, as a Deomocrat myself, I, like Peter David, would be forced to vote Republican if Ms. King survived this primary round. I wonder if the comic fan vote is really all that important?

Rest in Peace, At The Movies

Siskel-Ebert-At-the-Movies

I can trace my love of movies to two things, my mom, who passed her love of film down to me with weekly excursions to the local cineplex, and also to Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert as they appeared on At the Movies.

I started watching the show when I was still a teenager, it must have been around the mid 1980s. I'll be the first to admit that At the Movies, even at that time, probably wasn't a show that catered to the teenage demographic. I mean, there were not that many students at my high school wearing Siskel and Ebert T-shirts.

But I was captivated. As a burgeoning film buff, I couldn't have a better example as to what loving movies was all about than these two.

When they both loved a film, I wanted to rush out and see it then and there. When they both hated it, I knew enough to stay away, but a part of me wanted to see it anyway to see if I hated it as much as they did.

But when they disagreed, you kind of got the feeling that one would launch the other off of the balcony. It would seem that there was a very good chance that a punch going to be thrown. Later, it was revealed that it all was an act, that the rancor was played up for the audiences at home. Well, you could have fooled me.

But no matter where they stood on the week's films, the show was always entertaining. These guys loved films and loved exposing great films to new audiences. I lived in a small town in Pennsylvania and foreign or indie films never really graced my local theaters. But Siskel and Ebert exposed me to these films and thankfully the local video stores were much better. I have seen many movies I would have never sought out otherwise.

_1269567996

In 1999, Gene Siskel passed away due to complications from surgery to remove a brain tumor. After a period of time of other critics getting a chance to sit across from Roger, Ebert was paired with Richard Roeper. It wasn't the same, but, then again, it never could be. But Ebert and Roeper created their own dynamic. It always seemed like it was more of a "master and student" kind of relationship than a meeting as equals. But they still had some spirited discussions and had a good chemistry.

Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002 and was struck with complications in 2006. He would never return to the show. Roeper was paired with a number of guest co-hosts for an extended period of time, but in 2008 Ebert and Roeper ended their association with the company that syndicated the program and a new direction was in store.

I kind of lost touch with the show a little while before this. I think it was a mix of a constantly shifting schedule, my life taking on outher priorities and maybe a little due to Ebert's abscenses. I wasn't a religious viewer of the program anymore, but I tried to catch it whenever I could.

Atthemovies_l

I caught some episodes of the new direction, the critically lambasted one with Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Yeah. All the criticism that goes around with this version is pretty much right. I was never a fan of Lyons. I always found him a bit unctous when he was a celebrity interviewer on E!, and here he seemed less like a film critic than a frat boy spouting off on something he didn't know all that much about.

Mankiewicz came off a little better, at least a little more knowledgeable. However, he didn't really have that much charisma and chemistry with Lyons. I get the feeling the matching of these two was some executive's grand idea of matching a hip young guy to get the younger demographic with an older seasoned guy who could keep the show's loyal fans. It didn't work.

Neither man was a critic (although Lyons was the son of one. But genetics really doesn't count). Neither man worked for a newspaper. Neither man seemed to have the passion for films that Ebert and Roeper did, let alone Ebert and Siskel did. If you are looking to point fingers over the demise of this show, point to whoever came up with this edition of the program.

Atthemovies02a

Last year, the double Bens were replaced by A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune. This is when I started becoming a regular viewer again. It was this version of the show that seemed to best recapture the Siskel and Ebert glory days.

These guys were experienced critics. Both had acted as fill-ins during the period of time when Ebert was out. Both seemed that they at the very least liked films very much.

And the pair had chemistry with one another. They could get argumentative, but could also be on the same page. But either way, what they said and how they said it was interesting. Their opinions might not have always matched with mine, but they were always presented in an intelligent and witty fashion.

It seems that when it was announced in March that the show would be cancelled, a lot of people seem to mourn the Siskel and Ebert version. I also mourn the present one as well. If Disney kept this on a little longer, it still might have not caught on. But at least it ends on a good note.

This weekend will be the airing of the last episode of At the Movies. The day is long in coming, but apparently could not be averted. My DVR will be down one recording each week, and the world of serious film criticism will be losing another of its best examples. Rest in peace, At the Movies. I'll miss you.