Rolling with Hall of Fame

I read with great interest your piece devoted to the selection of performers for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame [“The Genesis of a Progressive Rock Trend?,” Jan. 1, by Mike Boehm].

As pointed out, there is clearly an inconsistency and bias in the decision-making process, which has left many deserving artists overlooked year after year.

I agree that the Fifth Dimension are well worthy of consideration and clearly the Monkees’ extreme commercial success combined with their teen idol reputation seems to work against them, though in a fair and balanced world they would have been admitted years ago.

However, the Hall of Fame board is particularly guilty of a boy’s club mentality that passes over female talent as if they are second-class citizens. How else to explain the absence of trail-blazing singer-songwriter Jackie DeShannon (“Put a Little Love in Your Heart,” “Bette Davis Eyes”), who was at the forefront of the folk-rock era, paving the way for later girl rockers like Stevie Nicks and Sheryl Crow.

Hopefully the times they are-a-changin’, starting with this year’s broader range of inductees.

Jim Pierson

Toluca Lake

::

I never called it that but prog rock provided much of my soundtrack for the ‘70s and ‘80s. Genesis (with Peter Gabriel) and Yes are among my Top 10 all-time groups. I bought records and attended concerts by all your primary groups. I especially appreciated your mention of one of my all-time favorite songs “A Salty Dog.” In your second level groups, I was a big Strawbs fan but never met anyone in America who knew them. I’d also like to mention Barclay James Harvest, Caravan and the Nice. I join you in supporting enshrinement for Jethro Tull and the Monkees but don’t leave out the Moodies.

Richard Turner

Fontana

::

I agree with many of your comments but was disappointed that one of the U.K.’s most successful and enduring acts wasn’t mentioned -- the band Marillion, who has been making fantastic music for almost 30 years and has been one of the first bands to master the commercial appeal of the Internet and fan-financed funding.

Brian Morris

Beverly Hills

A few theories of their own

Just read the article “How a Lawsuit Was Created” [Dec. 29, by Mike Boehm] online, and wanted to thank you for putting it out there. The creationist movement is by no means a benign one, and it needs to be constantly tracked and reported on accurately so that the people who make up the real scientific community can defend the mass of evidence that supports Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. Please continue to be diligent as you follow this story, and please continue noting that the American Freedom Alliance and the creationism that it promotes has a history of trying to debunk hard, real science and continues to do so through its network of religiously affiliated funding sources.

Justin Braun

Santa Cruz

::

Most of the organizations pushing so-called intelligent design, a.k.a. creationism, either have a publishing arm or are linked to a publishing company, and the real bottom line of it all is for them to get a slice of the lucrative public school textbook market. It’s all about money. When it comes to mainstream Christianity, there’s no equivocation on the fact that Darwinian evolution is the strategy by which the creator brought humans and all else into existence. The Times would do our nation a great service to publish a feature story reporting the position of mainstream Christian churches that support Darwinian evolution and oppose creationism in its various disguises because the relentless political pressure from the creationists is eroding America’s scientific education in public schools.

John F. Rossmann

Tustin

::

What have we come to when we let such legal nonsense and zealotry cost us and a nonprofit science center time and money spent in such arenas instead of doing what it is supposed to do: promote legitimate science and learning? It is another example of how lost and pathetic we have become trying to please everyone.

Hunt Barnett

Los Angeles

Cinematic 007 deserves respect

With reference to Patrick Goldstein’s Jan. 6 Calendar article “007 Bondage Not a Good Move for Mendes”: In providing career advice to director Sam Mendes that he steer clear of directing a James Bond movie because it’s “hack work,” Goldstein improperly insults the 48-year-old 007 film series.

While there is indeed a formula in place for these movies, and no one would say that every one of the 22 spy thrillers can be considered a masterpiece of moviemaking, Goldstein overlooks the excellence in filmmaking that has gone into the creation of many of these productions, with directing skill being one of the primary elements responsible.

The sixth Bond film, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” is, in my opinion, one of the best adventure movies ever made and that is largely due to the work of its director, Peter Hunt, the series’ original editor. It is a masterful piece of work, with Hunt’s direction at the helm of stand-out performances, writing, editing, music and production design.

Terence Young certainly put his mark on the Bond series in his direction of three of the four first films, with “From Russia With Love” owing much to the director’s touch in its compelling delivery of intrigue and adventure, making it, arguably, one of the best spy thrillers of all time. Goldstein’s dismissal of the 007 franchise gives the impression that these are merely B pictures churned out with little thought or talent. In fact, the innovations of this series had a huge impact on the filmmaking style and techniques of movies in the early 1960s. Indeed, the series continues to be globally popular among moviegoers.

I would think that Mendes, or any director, might find it an excitement and a challenge to see what he could do with a Bond movie. Director Martin Campbell recently helped lift the series out of the doldrums with “Casino Royale.” Remember “Goldfinger”? It’s a cinema classic.

Danny Biederman

Encino

Doing the math on Warren Beatty

Peter Biskind “calculates” the number of Warren Beatty’s lovers to be 12,775 [“Warren Beatty, Bared,” by Lawrence Levi, Jan. 7].

Beatty is 72. Assuming he started his “quest” at the age of 16, and subtracting the 21 years he’s been with Annette Bening, that computes to 35 years of “womanizing.” Thirty-five years times 365 days a year equals 12,775, so Biskind is really saying that Beatty was with a different woman every night (or day) of his life from the age of 16 to 51?

Yeah, right!

Bob Murtha

Santa Maria