----- Original Message ----- From: "Marty Rudnick" > Stewart, > > Ouch! Ok, I apologize if my opinions were quite obtuse. I don't > know that my remarks warranted that type of personal attack. > > Please allow me to restate what was previosly poorly expressed. > > A: It was my observation that wimpy bands seem less likely to have > Rock and Roll cred. > > B: I was using the O'Jays as an arbitrary example. I personally to > not consider them a rock and roll band. I apologize if my comments were a bit harsh. From my perspective, however, I was having real problems processing what on earth the O'Jays had to do with Observation A: I read it several times over, just to make sure I was reading it correctly, and it certainly seemed to me that what you were saying was that the O'Jays had more credibility with the "pandering and trying to be cool" powers that be at the RRHoF because (and only because) they were black. I see now that the difference is that you draw a line between "R&B" and "rock and roll." That's cool, and you're entirely within your rights to do so. Personally, I don't, because the hair-splitting just isn't worth it to me -- you could grow a Rip Van Winkle beard trying to decide where the Righteous Brothers go, or the Fifth Dimension -- and given that historically speaking, rock and roll itself is what happened when country-and-western started to intermingle with jump blues, I don't think I can logically justify that distinction. However, I'm sorry if I was too harsh in my judgment about your initial statement. > C: I think the Hollies deserve to be in. I like the Hollies fine, although more so in the Graham Nash days. Given that I think the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in general is a completely lame concept that misses the point of the music entirely, I've never really given thought to where my personal Mendoza Line is. But the Hollies would probably end up on the right side of it, and in the long run, that's all that matters to me. Nobody needs Jann Wenner's validation on this. S