The obvious caveat: historical periods are post-hoc constructs, there are no clear boundaries between eras, we can cut history up a million different ways.
That being said, we call Shakespeare an early modern writer and James Joyce a modernist writer. Is there a point between 1616 and, say, 1900 where historians draw that line?
If you were a 'hipster' in the late 2000s/early 2010s, Fleet Foxes probably showed up on your radar. After becoming almost viral sensations with their first 2 EPs, they put out a Platinum-selling, critically acclaimed debut in 2008. Their second album Helplessness Blues (2011) peaked at #4 on the Billboard album charts and went gold in the US and two other countries.
Then Crack-Up after a 6 year hiatus and Shore in 2020, which seems like it might be their last album and is arguably a Robin Pecknold solo album. Robin Pecknold is currently touring as a solo artist.
In other words, they seem to be on a very long hiatus, if not broken up, and now seems like a good time to look back on their body of work.
For me, I think they have a pretty consistently strong discography. I can't really think of a terrible Fleet Foxes song. People look back at that era of indie folk and derisively call it "stomp clap hey," but the Fleet Foxes never sounded like that. The narrative about them was always that they had a retro west coast sound inspired by artists like The Beach Boys. "Baroque" is a word often used to describe their music and it's appropriate: they have a dense sound with reverbed harmonies and the frequent use of unusual instruments alongside regular folk-rock instrumentation.
I think Robin Pecknold's lyricism is a major strength. He can be introspective, he can throw in literary and historical references, he can paint some really evocative, almost cinematic images. People might remember them as just the "White Winter Hymnal" band, but I think their discography has a lot more to offer.
While there have been a few threads about Frank Sinatra, I thought I'd start another one laying out the case for him to get in, probably as an Early Influence. I think there are five fairly compelling arguments for him.
Yes, he famously hated rock and roll in the fifties. But he also performed with Elvis and covered The Beatles a few years later. And I think he had enough artistic and economic influence on rock music to be a hall of fame candidate.
This Oscar was first awarded in 2002 (recognizing films of 2001).
You'd have to think that the Disney Renaissance would have dominated the early 90s. Beauty and the Beast for 91, Aladdin for 92, The Lion King for 94. And then Toy Story for 1995 and a battle between Toy Story 2 and Princess Mononoke (which I think would have been eligible that year) for 1999.
For 1993, I'd go with The Nightmare Before Christmas.
Hunchback of Notre Dame for 1996?
Anastasia or Hercules for 1997?
A Bug's Life, Mulan, The Prince of Egypt or Antz for 1998?
After cofounding British folk rock in the late sixties as a member of Fairport Convention, singer/songwriter/guitarist Richard Thompson has had a 50+ year career as part of Richard and Linda Thompson and then as a solo artist. He's collaborated with dozens of artists, created the soundtrack for Grizzly Man, and attracted a devoted cult following. He's a skilled musician and a fantastic live performer.
I guess the arguments against Thompson would be a) he's never had a hit and b) he's not that famous, he's a musician's musician who's never really broken into general pop culture.
What do you think?
To me, Thompson's influence (his major role in creating a whole subgenre of music, his songs covered by other artists, his influence on other guitarists) and long, consistently interesting career make him a strong candidate, even in the absence of real commercial success. There's a reason why people like Robert Plant, Elvis Costello and Yo la Tengo have covered his songs.
When this category was first introduced at the turn of the millennium, it had a very clear mission: recognizing the contributions of session/backing musicians.
In recent years, the inductions of musicians like Carol Kaye and Nicky Hopkins have continued this tradition. But the rock hall has started inducting performers (including a few artists previously nominated as performers) in that category: Judas Priest, MC5, Jimmy Buffet, LL Cool J, Dionne Warwick.
Which seems strange, because these are people known as artists, as performers. Judas Priest isn't the Wrecking Crew. They're not a band of backing musicians who play on other people's records.
So, my question is this: what is the point of this category now, and what makes induction in this category different from a normal induction? For instance, why is Judas Priest here and not a normal inductee?
It seems like a mishmash of its original purpose and something like a second-tier hall of fame induction.
Inspired by the recent thread about The Black Keys, whose newest album is one of those classic cliched career moves: an artist "returning to their roots" by covering the music that inspired them.
It's a pretty common category of album, and one that's often seen as an inessential addition to the artist's discography.
But are there any covers albums that had enough of a negative impact to count as Trainwreckords? One candidate that comes to mind is Duran Duran's Thank You, which does represent basically the end of the band as hitmakers in the US. It also contains a hilarious cover of Public Enemy's "911 is a Joke," which represents a truly inexplicable mismatch between artist and song.
Pure one-hit wonder: a Billboard Hot 100 #1 single with no other charting songs.
Some options are:
When you think of rock's album era, one of the key aspects is the album itself as a little visual art object, as part of the experience. As a way to establish a mood and even a whole visual identity for the artist.
Two of the best to ever do that are Roger Dean and the art collective Hipgnosis.
If you say "prog" to me, the mental image that comes to mind is one of Roger Dean's Yes album covers. His art established a visual brand for that whole style of music.
And Hipgnosis is behind some of the most iconic images in rock history: the prism and rainbow on the cover of The Dark Side of the Moon (and pretty much all of Pink Floyd's classic album covers), Led Zeppelin's LED-ZEPPELIN logo and post-IV album covers, T. Rex's Electric Warrior, 10CC, Peter Gabriel III/Melt...
Obviously, there isn't a precedent for inducting visual artists in to the Rock Hall. But I think these two names had enough of an impact on rock culture/marketing to be strong candidates. What do you think?
Obviously, this is a genre of music with different expectations in terms of sales/chart placement.
That being said, are there any jazz records that would fit the Trainwreckords format?
It's happened just a handful of times in the past 60 years:
What do you think about this interesting category of films? And do you see it ever happening again? I think it's unlikely considering the expanded best picture category.
Are there any one-hit wonders in this space that would make for good episodes?
Todd really hasn't covered this genre and I was wondering if there were any albums in this space that might make for good Trainwreckords.
Obviously, there's the elephant in the room: what really derailed bands in this was drug addiction, and talking about, I don't know, Alice in Chains going on a long hiatus because of Layne Staley's heroin addiction and eventual death just isn't fun or funny.
That being said, are there any good examples of artists from this genre/related genres coming off the rails in an entertaining way?
Since the obvious answer would probably be one of the very early winners like The Broadway Melody or Cavalcade, let's limit this to, say, the last 80 or so years, the end of World War II to the present.
Gentleman's Agreement (1947) comes to mind.
Strangely, I think the much more recent The Artists (2011) might be one as well. Best Picture/Director/Actor but seemingly never gets brought up anymore.