Michael Jackson Nominated For the Pop Music Hall of Fame.

Ms. BlueGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
2,880
Points
0
Location
A Place With No Name.
ABBA, Michael Jackson, Billy Joel First Time Nominees For the Pop Music Hall of Fame
11:02 AM America's Pop Music Hall of Fame, Pop No comments
by VVN Music

In comparison to most other organizations honoring the great artists of music, the Pop Music Hall of Fame is in its infancy, yet it has already honored some of the biggest names of the rock era.

Holding their first induction in 2013, they have already honored a number of singers and groups that are overlooked by other similar halls like Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis, Tom Jones, Andy Williams and Neil Sedaka.

The other thing that sets the Pop Music Hall of Fame apart is that the nominees are selected by musicians, disc jockeys and journalists but the inductees are chosen by the public in a vote that, this year, runs from November 2 to December 2.

This year's nominees are (first time nominees denoted with an asterisk):
ABBA *
Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass
Lou Christie
The Dave Clark Five
Petula Clark
John Denver *
Earth, Wind & Fire *
The 5th Dimension *
Four Tops
Aretha Franklin *
Marvin Gaye *
Herman's Hermits *
Michael Jackson *
The Jackson 5
Tommy James & the Shondells
Billy Joel *
Tony Orlando & Dawn *
Johnny Rivers *
Diana Ross *
Rod Stewart
The Pop Music Hall of Fame is located in Cannonsburg, PA, the hometown of Perry Como, Bobby Vinton and the Four Coins. Future plans include a formal museum with "a historical area to showcase the roots of the local artists, a permanent artist exhibit, a theater, office space, and rotating section of newly inducted artists."

Previously inducted:

2013 - the Beach Boys, the Beatles, Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, Nat King Cole, Perry Como, Bobby Darin, Neil Diamond, Brenda Lee, Johnny Mathis, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Bobby Vinton and Stevie Wonder.

2014 - The Bee Gees, Tony Bennett, Carpenters, Chicago, Buddy Holly, Elton John, Carole King, Dean Martin, the Monkees, Roy Orbison, Patti Page, the Platters, Simon & Garfunkel and the Supremes.

2015 - Paul Anka, Glen Campbell, Chubby Checker, the Eagles, the Everly Brothers, the Four Seasons, Tom Jones, Paul McCartney, Rick Nelson, the Righteous Brothers, Linda Ronstadt, Johnny Tillotson, and Andy Williams. The “Heritage” inductees were Les Paul and Mary Ford.

2016 - The Association, Dion and the Belmonts, the Grass Roots, the Lettermen, Barry Manilow, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Neil Sedaka, Barbra Streisand, the Temptations and Three Dog Night. The “Heritage” inductees were Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, the Ink Spots and the Mills Brothers
 
This is the first time I've heard of the Pop music Hall of Fame, but how in the hell was the King of Popular music not inducted on opening night by default.:no:
 
Last edited:
Do we have to vote to get KOP to be nominated Pop Music Hall of Fame. Funny:scratch:
 
How exactly is it a Pop Music Hall of Fame without Michael Jackson?
 
I had just voted for quite a number of my most favorite* artists (*who would most likely have normally been classified and categorized as either “R&B,” or “Soul,” performers, under other circumstances) — including Michael. But, putting titles on him — such as “King of Pop,” for example — would unfairly place restrictions and limits on what he was truly capable of doing, musically and genre-wise, as far as what the public’s mindset would be, anyway. Don’t any of you commenting, here, think so?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
GGVVGGCC22331122;4173970 said:
I had just voted for quite a number of my most favorite* artists (*who would most likely have normally been classified and categorized as either “R&B,” or “Soul,” performers, under other circumstances) — including Michael. But, putting titles on him — such as “King of Pop,” for example — would unfairly place restrictions and limits on what he was truly capable of doing, musically and genre-wise, as far as what the public’s mindset would be, anyway. Don’t any of you commenting, here, think so?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I love the title "King of Pop", it's very unique and so wide spread that it makes everyone know of Michael's place in the music world. I do get your issue though, his music is primarily pop, but it so often also crosses into many other genres such as soul, funk, rock, disco, R&B, dance, new jack swing, classical that's it's not fair to say "oh it's just pop".

...How about we just call him The King of Music? That'll solve everything :D
 
HIStoric;4173971 said:
I love the title "King of Pop", it's very unique and so wide spread that it makes everyone know of Michael's place in the music world. I do get your issue though, his music is primarily pop, but it so often also crosses into many other genres such as soul, funk, rock, disco, R&B, dance, new jack swing, classical that's it's not fair to say "oh it's just pop".

...How about we just call him The King of Music? That'll solve everything
:D


That would have been a really nice idea, HIStoric. Hmm....Something to think about, eh? But, as you have probably gathered by now, from what you have read of some of my comments, so far — up to this point — I am as deeply a fan of one other* individual (*he who shall not be named, for obvious reasons) who was just as equally talented as Michael Jackson was; To designate one single artist — in any musical genre — as the so-called “King” or “Queen” of every and all types of music would be absolutely unfair to those who also deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments. What do YOU think, about this?


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
GGVVGGCC22331122;4173977 said:
To designate one single artist — in any musical genre — as the so-called “King” or “Queen” of every and all types of music would be absolutely unfair to those who also deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments. What do YOU think, about this?

I mean, I might call Michael "The King of Music" or simply "The King" (sorry not sorry Elvis) but that doesn't mean I can't recognise other musicians for their accomplishments.

Just like you consider Prince equal, I consider The Beatles equal with Michael so even if I call Michael "The King" for fun, I don't think any less of John, Paul, George and Ringo and their work than what I do of Michael's. Who people consider "The King of Music" is going to vary person by person anyway :)
 
HIStoric;4173980 said:
I mean, I might call Michael "The King of Music" or simply "The King" (sorry not sorry Elvis) but that doesn't mean I can't recognise other musicians for their accomplishments.

Just like you consider Prince equal, I consider The Beatles equal with Michael so even if I call Michael "The King" for fun, I don't think any less of John, Paul, George and Ringo and their work than what I do of Michael's. Who people consider "The King of Music" is going to vary person by person anyway.
:)

Great points, HIStoric!!! By “equal,” we both mean: “That which is either no greater or no lesser” — in either talent, recognition, importance, impact or influence — “the same percentage, fair and square.” Yet, we each have our personal preferences and favorites. There IS room for more than just one, however — as we wouldn’t limit ourselves to selecting only one, and that would’ve been that.

Your comment is one of the most fair, to more than one particular artist — and most reasonably-minded, up to this point — that I have read, so far, from any poster bringing his/her views to the table, on this. We each have our own particular liking/loving of one type of music or another (as well as our preference for certain entertainers and performers who sing and/or play what we like to hear/listen to).

The big difference is, that critics who air their views in public do the exact same thing that any of us would do in private — expressing their personal opinion on this, that and the other, whatever “it” may be — using some form of the media to do so (whether in print, on television and radio, or online), while most even get paid for it.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I voted, but without being able to see the results up to now I would say this poll isn't exactly transparent.
 
3dog knight? How tf are they in there? The only time I've ever heard that name was on the ed Sullivan show as 1 of Michaels favorite groups
 
3dog knight? How tf are they in there? The only time I've ever heard that name was on the ed Sullivan show as 1 of Michaels favorite groups

that wasn't on the Ed Sullivan show, that was on Amercian Bandstand
 
oldies

3 dog night? How tf are they in there? The only time I've ever heard that name was on the ed Sullivan show as 1 of Michaels favorite groups
I take it you're not from the USA. I still occasionally hear Three Dog Night on oldies & classic rock stations, or on infomercials for Time-Life CD sets. If you look at the acts already inducted, the majority are from the 1960s and a few acts from the 1940s, 1950s, & 1970s. So probably boomers are the main ones voting and likely the age group who started this museum.
 
GGVVGGCC22331122;4173977 said:
That would have been a really nice idea, HIStoric. Hmm....Something to think about, eh? But, as you have probably gathered by now, from what you have read of some of my comments, so far — up to this point — I am as deeply a fan of one other* individual (*he who shall not be named, for obvious reasons) who was just as equally talented as Michael Jackson was; To designate one single artist — in any musical genre — as the so-called “King” or “Queen” of every and all types of music would be absolutely unfair to those who also deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments. What do YOU think, about this?


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Calling Michael The King of Pop, The King, or The King of music takes nothing away from any other artist.
Michael earned his title as The King fair and square after years of hard work, and even now the media stays trying to give his hard earned title away to other artists that are mediocre in comparison to him. :no:
 
Pink Diamond Princess;4174035 said:
Calling Michael The King of Pop, The King, or The King of music takes nothing away from any other artist.
Michael earned his title as The King fair and square after years of hard work, and even now the media stays trying to give his hard earned title away to other artists that are mediocre in comparison to him.
:no:


I, in no way, would consider that someone as amazingly talented as Prince was “mediocre” — not by a long shot!!! He was far from “mediocre,” and just as equal to Michael as Michael was to him; They each excelled at what they did, at an extremely high-quality level. I will say, however, that they differed, greatly, as far as which aspects of their skills they each were best at, if you understand what I’m saying, here.

But, I totally get it, P.D.P., when you are talking about either one (or, both) of the two “Justins” (Timberlake and/or Bieber, take your pick) and anyone else who desperately tries so hard to copycat off of any- and everything Michael ever did when it came to overall entertainment, from the way he sang and danced, to what he wore and how he wore it. A form of “cultural appropriation,” anyone?

Yeah, TELL me about it, P.D.P.!!! What’s so stupid and outright ridiculous, is that the media had already started looking for the “new,” or the “next ‘King of Pop,’ ” quite a number of years before Michael had actually passed, and when he was still very much alive. This type of thing only got worse, after he was no longer with us. I’m sure you’ve seen and read articles, some of which were written right afterwards, as well as others written a few years later than that, when “information” of some sort came out about some so-called newly-popular “artist” (supposedly, allegedly) breaking one record* or another (*whether it was surpassing his chart position, sales of “x-number” of copies of certain albums, or what have you), that he had held for so long.

When a magazine like “Rolling Stone” starts to actually declare Justin Timberlake (of all people, one of THE most obviously blatant copycats ever) the “new ‘King of Pop’ ” in one of its cover articles, that really takes the cake, the pie and everything else.

I do clearly understand that records can — and, will — eventually be broken, some time down the road. But, absolutely none of these newer, much younger so-called “artists” that came out with their first “hit” albums, CD’s or whatever — during the last, maybe....ten years, or so — could have ever held a candle to Michael, because, he already had something they absolutely, positively DO NOT have (let alone to the degree and to the extent he HAD it) and they NEVER will. No matter what “Rolling Stone” or any other biased, prejudiced, “Rock”-oriented magazine’s views of Michael are. That one thing was just this amazing, natural and pure musical talent.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122;4174102 said:
I, in no way, would consider that someone as amazingly talented as Prince was “mediocre” — not by a long shot!!! He was far from “mediocre,” and just as equal to Michael as Michael was to him; They each excelled at what they did, at an extremely high-quality level. I will say, however, that they differed, greatly, as far as which aspects of their skills they each were best at, if you understand what I’m saying, here.

But, I totally get it, P.D.P., when you are talking about either one (or, both) of the two “Justins” (Timberlake and/or Bieber, take your pick) and anyone else who desperately tries so hard to copycat off of any- and everything Michael ever did when it came to overall entertainment, from the way he sang and danced, to what he wore and how he wore it. A form of “cultural appropriation,” anyone?

Yeah, TELL me about it, P.D.P.!!! What’s so stupid and outright ridiculous, is that the media had already started looking for the “new,” or the “next ‘King of Pop,’ ” quite a number of years before Michael had actually passed, and when he was still very much alive. This type of thing only got worse, after he was no longer with us. I’m sure you’ve seen and read articles, some of which were written right afterwards, as well as others written a few years later than that, when “information” of some sort came out about some so-called newly-popular “artist” (supposedly, allegedly) breaking one record* or another (*whether it was surpassing his chart position, sales of “x-number” of copies of certain albums, or what have you), that he had held for so long. When a magazine like “Rolling Stone” starts to actually declare Justin Timberlake (of all people, one of [][]THE[][] most obviously []blatant[] copycats ever) the “new ‘[]King of Pop[]’ ” in one of its cover articles, [][] really takes the cake, the pie and [][] else.

I do clearly understand that records can — and, will — eventually be broken, some time down the road. But, absolutely []none[] of these newer, much []younger[] so-called “artists”


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Prince wasn't one of mediocre people I was talking about. :)
 
Re: oldies

I take it you're not from the USA. I still occasionally hear Three Dog Night on oldies & classic rock stations, or on infomercials for Time-Life CD sets. If you look at the acts already inducted, the majority are from the 1960s and a few acts from the 1940s, 1950s, & 1970s. So probably boomers are the main ones voting and likely the age group who started this museum.
Boomers who grew up listening to the records their parents listened to. This list of inductees reads like my parent's albums that I inherited-Johnny Mathis, Andy Williams, Nat King Cole etc-and the people I latched onto when I was a teen-like the Carpenters,the 5th Dimension and the Supremes.

It looks like to be eligible for this you have to be a performer and you have to have a top 100 hit between 1945 and 1975. Did Michael have many SOLO hits before 75? I know "Ben", but that's all I can think of. He got in just under the wire with the dates.

I hope they start nominating the big bands of the 40's like Harry James and Duke Ellington, Tommy Dorsey and Glenn Miller, etc. I consider them performers too. And they were definitely POP of the time. Still hold up. (to me :) )
 
Re: oldies

It looks like to be eligible for this you have to be a performer and you have to have a top 100 hit between 1945 and 1975. Did Michael have many SOLO hits before 75? I know "Ben", but that's all I can think of. He got in just under the wire with the dates.
There were a few others like I Wanna Be Where You Are & Got To Be There. But if that's the time period they're using, most of the hits were by the Jackson 5, not any of them solo.
 
^^Thanks!! I can see the Jackson 5 getting in since they broke records with their first four songs.
Can't believe Smokey and the Miracles aren't on the list!
 
hits

^^Thanks!! I can see the Jackson 5 getting in since they broke records with their first four songs.
Can't believe Smokey and the Miracles aren't on the list!
People always talk about the #1s, but the J5 had many other hits on the Top 40 and also the R&B chart. I know many people don't care about the R&B chart or consider it important, and only talk about the hits on the mainstream Top 40 pop chart, which is code for popular with white people. I see it all the time on this site, if a song or artist isn't known internationally or haven't sold a huge amount of records, then folks think they're nothing. Stuff like "I don't know who Three Dog Night is, and only heard Mike mention them once" or "Who is Garth Brooks? He isn't known in my country". :rofl: The thing about this is that this pop music museum is in the USA and so is the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame, so of course they're going to have acts that are popular in the USA. They're not going to induct acts popular in India, Mexico, or Cuba. So it doesn't matter if Three Dog Night is known in some other country. That has no relevancy to who is inducted in a building in the USA
 
Oh definitely they had more hits than that. I was just thinking on that record ALONE, they deserve to be inducted.
Very often songs that hit #1 on R&B charts or country didn't hit the top 10-maybe the top 40. Country-rock-pop was just as crossover as some R&B.
 
Oh definitely they had more hits than that. I was just thinking on that record ALONE, they deserve to be inducted.
Very often songs that hit #1 on R&B charts or country didn't hit the top 10-maybe the top 40. Country-rock-pop was just as crossover as some R&B.
I just think many people on this site are fixated on statistics like who sold the most or who had the most hits or who won some award. It not a race or sports where a winner is determined by who gets the most points. It's music, there's no winner or loser. It's not the same as playing a game. Winning an award does not make one performer better than another. Milli Vanilli won a Grammy and they didn't even sing on their album. Awards are generally given out to whoever is popular at the moment.
 
Pink Diamond Princess;4174103 said:
Prince wasn't one of mediocre people I was talking about. :)


Thank you, P.D.P., I’m so glad. But, you do agree with me that the “Rock” music-oriented publications (such as “Rolling Stone,” my previous example I had cited) all share at least some degree of prejudice and/or bias amongst their readership, writers and editorial board, when it comes to certain artists they either do or don’t like? These publishers, writers and editors of “mainstream” magazines are all a part of the larger media, that we well know has its long-time bias against Michael, for the most part. What do you think, P.D.P.?


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top