Post-war budget cuts saw Australia ' s role downgraded to a training ship before she was placed in reserve in I would be able to do it in the end naturally form what we all know, but it would take documentation and education. Buddy Holly to Muse can anybody say Power Trio, stripped down to the bare bone making incredible music. On a positive note, though, I am taking your advice and trying some of the stuff you recommended.
It just didn't touch me at all. Music without a soul, almost. Lyrically, it's like Seinfeld: Or if it is about something, it's on a soapbox and is intent on bashing the listener over the head until they listen to their message. That's not to say there wasn't some of it that I liked. I did find some pretty cool stuff, but it really was the minority.
Indie music is innovative at times, but it often lacks heart and soul. But on the other hand, mainstream is music without its head. Never the twain shall meet, it seems.
The DC5 belong in. Innovation is not a deal-breaker for me. A band can lack one of the three and even be weak in another and still merit induction if they can make up for it in the third. The DC5 proved that good rock'n'roll didn't require being rebellious. I would put the Hollies and the Moody Blues in as well, and maybe even the Zombies though the hit singles were pretty much the limit to their stuff. Their album stuff and B-sides really don't argue well for them , but the DC5 deserve the induction they got.
Their songs are cannonballs: Way to go off on one at an entire crowd of music that you have only the slightest knowledge of. Indie music has no soul? Right, so you can't have heard of The Arcade Fire, then. You need to try Patrick Wolf. It's overzealous at the listener? Pick up a Go! Your opinion of The DC5 does not mean crap about how much they deserve in. You like them, I don't. Why should your view be taken over absolutely anyone else's? Simply put, if what I have sampled does nothing for me, why on Earth would I be compelled to try now?
And I do try to tune in the local college rock station every now and then. Unfortunately, little has changed. Catchy stuff, and some nice innovations, but it still doesn't move me. Three good indie-label bands don't justify an entire group any more than three bad ones condemn it. I just stated what I see in the DC5.
Do you think your opinion should be taken over absolutely anyone else's? You must be looking in the wrong places. That site can be pretty condescending at times, but they tend to get the scores right. I think I agree with Phillip a bit on this. As for mainstream there is music I like and some that I don't.
As for the influence part I look at it this way Posted by dano on Saturday, Meanwhile, the acts you suggest Just a friendly suggestion. If it's selling, the record labels will want to get in on some the action and scout for more rock acts. We often call them wannabes and knockoffs, but they ARE rock acts nonetheless. When more rock acts are getting record deals, they keep putting out more rock music.
More rock music being put out Also, and a shorter route, if it's popular, that gives incentive to that band to keep putting out that kind of music, thus helping to perpetuate rock 'n' roll. And of those that do form bands It's just a funnel with a very narrow point of exit. Also, just because a musician likes an artist, you won't always be able to discern influence from the sound of their band.
But every band that makes it big Wether they sound like them or not. And even if a band doesn't make it big but is still around playing.. I know one guy who works in the industry who says he just doesn't take Billy Joel seriously whenever Joel speaks because he just wears his influences on his sleeve. But I think people look more to the music to see where the influences can actually be found. The proof should be in the pudding. As for those who don't make it big Nice to read a chap who thinks more along my line of thought Philip.
Posted by shawn on Saturday, Wouldn't that make the something else the actual important thing? Posted by William on Saturday, What's your idea of "small potatoes" bands? It it , units? I don't think anyone said that every no-name garage band should be taken into account. In fact I think I've said just the opposite on more than one occasion. On the whole, though, there's a lot of middle ground between garage acts self-releasing albums burnt on Office Depot blank discs and mega-successful arena acts.
You don't have to go triple-platinum to carve out a successful career in music. Yo La Tengo's been kicking around for 24 years and 13 albums. I'd call them successful, but I wouldn't say they "made it big," because that's inherently limiting. Lots of has-beens "made it big. There's thousands of them, but out of those thousands, at least a few with something original tend to be found by adventurous souls who then say to themselves "Wow, I've never heard anything like this before.
So if you can be successful without being huge, be influential and innovative with doing either, and make it big without being anything, in what was does success measure importance? Well, first I feel I must disappoint Shawn a little. I would put Bon Jovi in. Hair metal WAS the dominant face of rock 'n' roll before Nirvana came and laid waste to anything that stood in its path just generalizing the timeline here.
And I feel it should be acknowledged. I know, I know, gag and curse all you want. It's a genetic thing amongst us true Midwesterners. We loves us some hair metal So yeah, I meant them Still kinda new, so I'm just trying to feel everyone out here.
Give me time and I won't have to be uber-literal anymore. I was basically adressing every band out there. But the ones that get most of the airplay or tour a lot I would say influence other "to be" bands. I am a hair metal fan by far but I do enjoy other music but I don't think I have the same taste as William does.
Philip, I forgive you your sin of bad taste by loving Bon Jovi and hair metal. You and Dameon shall be fast friends now, esp if your love of spande rock includes his fav whipping boys, Def Lepard.
You and I still share a core philosophy that there are more doors into a rock hall than those with Innovation or Influence nameplates. Wiiliam, to answer your question again but this time in another stubborn form Philip put it perfectly in his Emblematic of this approach would probably be the case for the Doobie Brothers, whom I believe belong in the Hall.
I have no idea - I have not found nor assembled a litany how many, btw, would not elicit a scoff of "Is that all ya got? But their claim to the Hall lies in their simple Impact on the development and perpetuation of rock music because of their popularity, airplay, sales and ubiquity for about a 10 year period from I could list their numbers and all their great hit singles, but you'll just tell me that has nothing to do with I or I yea, and so what? Here's my stance on artists that charted and sold like the Doobies did,in that time, - before the crap of the 00's, they made an IMPACT and did perpetuate rock - they must then be given the SUCK test - as in, did they?
If they sucked by general consensus, they are probably right out. There are very few eceptions to this law - those acts that sucked but trump that with unfortunate sheer force of presence. Note that in no way does this detract from the merits and cases for the Replacements, Brian Enos and Nick Drakes of the rock wilderness. They stand true and tall by much different measure. Just remember, though, if you take a trip to the Midwest better have a Poison CD handy as camouflage.
That's something else the DC5 and the Doobies at least in their earlier stuff had. Which does bring us to the question of defining it I like to think of it in the same way a Supreme Court justice once described something else: Posted by Philip on Sunday, If being rock and roll was actually criteria you couldn't make any inductions past You either take the name totally literally or not at all.
I'll say it again: I think "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" was a stupid choice for a name and only chosen as tourist bait. Posted by Liam on Sunday, As far as influence goes, hair-metal is expendable, and as for innovation, well, I won't even go there parce qu'il n'y a rien. Exactly what is the 'impact' supposed to be on?
Because in all honestly, this justs sounds like some lame excuse at getting the fav'rites in the Hall. There's an ocean of possibility between those two ends Chiefly because it's the most tangible and measurable standard. Not always the best, but oh well. And I'm referring to Impact on popular culture, how many ears are being reached, because rock'n'roll was and is primarily a form of pop culture, and it's not a term of shame.
Your thinking of rock specifically, but 'rock' and 'rock and roll' are not synonymous. Pretty much no artists post '72 can be consiidered rock and roll. Rock and roll in itself isn't around anymore, and rock isn't primarily a form of pop culture now. Well, we could argue until eternity and not agree on the definition of rock 'n' roll.
I like what Billy Joel said As to the only other points: You can perpetuate it by continuing to play the music of the 50's and 60's, just as you can perpetuate a story by the continued retelling of it. The point is to keep it in the hearts and minds of listeners, which can be done through innovation of new sounds, influencing others to become musicians, or through continuing in your own successful style.
If you're referring to pop vs. I simply mean rock was and is primarily form of entertainment, which is the foundation of what constitutes "pop culture. As a musician, you're being influenced by whatever '60s act you care to play the music of, and therefore it's said '60s act that is doing the perpetuating.
If you were to influence other musicians, then yes, you yourself would be perpetuating rock. My Bloody Valentine, Brian Eno, The Velvet Underground and thousands of others didn't and don't make music primarily as a form of entertainment.
I simply disagree with how you define it. What matters is how the end user is using it. They may be creating rock music for the purpose of creating art, but as long as people are using for entertainment, it's entertainment.
Even if their idea of entertainment is stimulation through indulgence in the arts. And no artist can escape it. To be frank, "entertainment" isn't what the Hall should be looking at, because it isn't measurable. Rock and pop were initially made as forms of entertainment, and not taken seriously by critics. It has since become an actual form of art.
Whether you, me or the next guy "enjoys" this doesn't actually make a blind bit of difference. Of course, not everyone actually makes artwork, else we wouldn't have to endure sub-mediocre tripe like Bon Jovi or Def Leppard. That's how Billboard, Arbitron, Nielsen, etc. You may not be able to measure the amount of joy and pleasure you give people, but that's another matter.
And entertainment should matter because being entertaining is one way that something gets heard enough times to influence others. Hearing it once and making an impact is possible, but not likely.
That's not to say something can't be art AND entertainment. There's plenty of evidence to prove that it can, but when you rule out the entertainment value, you pretty much make it a convention for performance art types of music. Would you put Yoko Ono in the Hall? Because that's where the "art is the ultimate end-all be-all" argument leads. You need to acknowledge art AND entertainment in healthy proportions to get the artists that we hail as worthy of induction into the Hall.
The two pieces need each other. Never heard of the Rallying To The Winner effect? What about Metallica's St. That went 1, and yet pretty much everyone I know told me it sucked. I'd be surprised if yu could scrape more than 10 artists influenced by Bon Jovi, and they are popular. If you want to measure influence, measure it directly.
Don't be lazy by letting sales be an indication. I'm choking on all this sarcasm! You could make a case for the other two, especially Ono. Why do we have to acknowledge "entertainment" you mean sales? I mean, assuming you do mean sales, there's already an organisation that recognizes it: And supposing that you do mean entertainment, how do we measure that?
I've already shown how sales can't show what is entertaining, but why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?
The problem with the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony is that it has become a TV show with time constraints and performances. They should go back to just inducting artists and giving induction speeches, with no performances except for the all-star jam at the end, like they used to do the late 80s. They inducted a lot more artists per year back then: Each band is counted as 1.
Without them, nothing else would have happened! Posted by Roy on Sunday, Posted by joker on Sunday, Now this is what I call a good conversation. Philip and Shawn - thank you for many of the points you made. I don't see how pure innovation and direct influence can be the only benchmarks for the HoF. I still think perpetuate is the key word and you don't have to be either to do this.
Shawn - you got to let D. Yes, I believe Lep deserves consideration for all the reasons I have mentioned in the past, but that is not a vote from me of the whole 80's scene.
Yes, I enjoyed the music. It was fun, especially in the clubs, but I only think a handful of those bands deserve any consideration Queensryche comes to mind and IMO, there are a lot of bands who came before that which I would like to see inducted first Purple, Cheap Trick, K. Liam - serious question for you. Don't you think that all RnR bands are underground up to the point where someone makes their music accessible to some sort of listening outlet radio, internet, etc.
Joker - Mott the Hoople - why not! Great band, but i doubt it. Posted by Dameon on Sunday, I think "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" was a stupid choice for a name But I Contemporary or Modern just sound to me whatthey are: I think people need to justexpand their perceptions of Rock and take off the blinders, open up a bit. Posted by shawn on Sunday, Where is the danger you see in opening up to more than this rigid, scholarly insistence on scientific documentation of Innovation or Influence by a peer reviewed medical journal.
Which, by the way, I will submit yet again, can be subjective itself; accurate possibly, yes, but nonetheless subjective. After justnow reading through the entirety of Liam's and Philip's volley, the great divide is now very clear, and why we shall go no furher without some kind of a bridge: But for Liam, Impact on other musicians is the only respectable and relevant measure. I understand and respect his viewpoint, but disagree wholeheartedly and think him a bit nuts.
Were we to embrace his approach, the Hall would quickly become a self-absorbed pedantic study of "Art". Sorry Liam, but I find it comically absurd to treat popularity as irrelevant, even treat it rudely as the white trash component of a naturally popular medium and to try to "legitimize" rock only if we see it as art, only consider what other musicians think.
What a self-involved load of hooey that would be ultimately just collapse in on itself under the weight of all that grandiose. I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of "It is so because it is," without explaining any of how it works. Well, I can't see anything within the 'Labels Encouragement' crap, because even if the label didn't pick the group up, the group would still be making the music.
How should a bands label status affect the music their making? You need to explain how sales on their own have impact, because you haven't already. Explain exactly how The Doobie Brothers impacted rock without innovating or influencing. How do sales affect anything other than sales ignoring the very minor connection between that and influence.
How do you propose we finance this? By forbidding the dumb public from entering?? I know, we could have the inductees pitch in with the chores to save some money. We'll have Johnny Rotten be the greeter, the surviving members of the Grateful Dead pass out refreshments of brownies and Kool-Aid, dress up Debbie Harry in a maid's outfit to dust off the trophies, assign the Police to security detail, put Steve Tyler on the snow blower and let Paul McCartney fix holes on the roof when the rain gets in.
I think you're underestimating the size of Pitchfork's reader base, joker. There are more people giving a crap about influence and innovation than you realise. Whether there is enough to keep the Hall afloat is anyone's guess, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was. Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right? So how do you explain that a large proportion of the top sellers of all time are in the Hall of Fame? Just a crazy coincidence?
If the Hall has it wrong, then who among the top sellers are you kicking out? And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists like VU of course , but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them.
Posted by mel on Sunday, Ok, kind of a touch-and-go response trying to reply to as much as I can with as few words as possible, so if I omit some seemingly small point that means the world to you, sorry and tough. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of 'It is so because it is,' without explaining any of how it works.
If it sells, it's a bandwagon that other companies will jump on to cash in on. In a way it still affects us and influences us today. Some of those other bands that had been around before Nirvana broke big finally broke big themselves because the labels wanted to sell what they were offering.
And even if you call it a "very minor connection", as you parenthetically did, you can't just wave it off, because it's there. Because clearly those are bad things to have. Claiming "unwashed masses" is usually just another way of saying "I have personality issues that forbid me from exercising even the most basic form of respect for my fellow man if they don't agree with me about this.
I could get all pretentious and snotty because I absolutely loathe not just 00's mainstream music, but also what "American Idol" has done to both TV and radio. There are things I like that aren't exactly haute couture. Instead, I choose to just get myself together and join the human race. Now, I'm not saying they have as much credibility as other musicians, or producers, insiders, historians, but that doesn't make them idiots.
As for Ono, I like her, but wouldn't put her in. Her only influence that you can call hers is with other performance and avant-garde artistes, and that just doesn't extend very widely.
Her current popularity is due more to the talent of electronica producers and remixers. On a positive note, though, I am taking your advice and trying some of the stuff you recommended. Autolux didn't agree with me I don't mean this as a derogatory statement Same for you Shawn.
Liam - as much as I respect your opinion as to why innovation and influence are the King and Queens of benchmarking, it is just not possible for this subject to be so black and white. If we feel that Rock is as much an art form as anything else, then we have to appreciate the fact that art is usually liked or disliked. Sales leads to accessibility and accessibility leads to possible influence.
I think you are correct when stating that a lot of people are looking for bands that have something new to give us. But I think that people are looking more for something that they enjoy.
If that something is also new and influential, then great. But if it is nothing more than a reinvention of something done 20 years earlier with maybe a slight new twist, then that can be just as important in perpetuating the continued success and growth of the art form. I have waited 5 months to see this conversation and I thank you all. C'mon - are you being intentionally obtuse now? If this difference in our paradigms has been distilled down now and diagnosed as simply the difference in how we define perpetuate and how you are willing to define it a musician context only then let's get some clarity and move onto another phase of this conversation.
But how long will we keep coming back to this same loop of questions from you? Philip has explained how our reasoning works in at least 3 different ways that I just went back and saw and I have a couple times now.
Fear not that duty. Financial success not only prompts them perpetuates to continue creating this rock music but allows them to do so. I too, like Mel am perplexed at your belief that ackowledging that rock is an amalgam of art and entertainment is devil talk - why are tey so damn mutually exclusive to you?
You are setting up a false dichotomy which we will reject over and over; from whence comes this fevered quest to preserve the homor of your fair maiden Art? Rex voters choose 2 of these 6 Total of 8 inductees. Posted by shawn on Monday, In the '50s and '60s, before rock became an artform, artists could rely less on substance and more on publicity to be influential eg The Monkees.
There is absolutely no correlation between innovation and sales whatsoever. None of whom's influential work was "best-selling. Oh wait, there all anomalies, right? Posted by Liam on Monday, I'm not completely dismissing that there are a certain few artists whose influence was aided by huge commercial success, but how many artists got in the same position as Nirvana?
All it shows is that your CHANCES of having followers will increase, but you haven't given a concrete rule that the followers will be there. With that, you're forced to assume that the followers are there. Why not make it easy on yourself and actually find out who actually followed the artist? You cannot assume that any proportion of the consumers are musicians. But, more importantly, even if an artist IS cloned due to large sales, what about the clones that undoubtedly make it big?
For every one Pearl Jam there are around thirty Nickelbacks that enter the mainstream and often stay there. How do you deal with them, without bringing your own opinion of the music into it? Yes, many do, but it's not everyone's priority. You enjoy a band. Lots of people enjoy that band.
But exactly why they should be put into a museum is something baffling. This is supposed to be a HoF that includes the artists that "perpetuate rock and roll. Also, you won't be around forever. You can't "prove" that something is 'bad. You can't just lump extra criteria like your opinion onto sales, otherwise, what's the point? You either take sales on their own or you don't ake them at all. And since there are already plenty of organisations that recognise sales, I'd go for the latter.
Can you list them please? Because by your logic, there are loads of them to choose from. There should at least be as many that have sold over 10 million albums. Posted by mel on Monday, Liam, you act like museums are places which are put together by robots documenting history.
You don't think there are curators in an art museum? You don't think they apply some editorial control of what gets exhibited? Why else do you keep asking for Pitchfork to take over the process other than the fact you think their taste is more closely aligned with your own?
They wouldn't be any more "objective" than the current committee. They are just coming from a newer perspective. You said "best-selling" artists, and NONE of them were that whn they were doing their influential works or at all, in most of the cases.
I listed 34, each one managing to have masses of influence either without or before going mainstream. Why is 10, maximum "ridiculous"? You're saying sales have no relationship to influence, so there should be an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum.
If 10, is ridiculous, then what number isn't ridiculous? Or are is there a flaw in your logic? What makes bands like VU so special and many of the ones you listed , is that they were able to make an impact in spite of sales.
They're the needle in the haystack and it's a large haystack. Let's look at your original post: The HoF has to sell tickets to keep itself running and make profits, and the most obvious way of doing that is by putting recognizable acts in there. Who do you think the guy on the street would rather see when he makes his visit: Sonic Youth or The DC5?
I do not care about a band's popularity at all when it comes to this. The Beatles are highly influential, they sold alot of records, therefore they deserve in. Sonic Youth are highly influential and innovative, they didn't sell anywhere near as many records, they deserve in. Feel free to track down a backlog queue I made somewhere to see whether you agree with my picks.
You could push it down to 30 mill. You're the one claiming that there is an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. So I'm asking you to prove that by naming some influencers who have sold less than 10, or 50, if you wish albums. I'm saying that to make an impact at that low of a sales threshold is nearly impossible, but it can happen if the planets are aligned just so. This always comes back to what you are willing to include in your definition of Perpetuate, Liam.
I find it myopic to the point of baffling. Influence between musicians is a pillar - YES - a solid touchstone indeed- we all acknowledge that as gospel and do not challenge it NOR are stating that it must be correlated to sales. Your assertion that we have no basis to assume that any portion of consumers may also be musicians is simply contrary nonsense and flys in the face of common logic. That's what breaks my chain? That's the nature of the beast.
It may be indirect, but personal in philosophy nonetheless. Are there Hobbits and wee fairies playing the lute and harp for kind passer-bys in this land of the hippie troubador you describe? This all speaks to perpetuating. How many times have we seen you declare that sales and influence had nothing whatsoever to do with each other?
How can you be so stubborn? How can you really believe that perpetuating rock and roll can ONLY be evaluated in the myopic context of the fishbowl world between musicians? They are not animals in a zoo whom we watch the mating habits of for study purposes It IS related, it ISrelevant. It IS a poular medium. It IS entertainment s well as art. Yea, yea it is, brother!!!!!!!!!! For the first time here Liam, you are exasperating me to the point of pissing me off. You're on record many times as saying "sales don't mean anything" -- mainly about bands you simply don't like.
Now you can say that "sales increase your chances for being influential, but don't guarantee it. They don't "increase your chances. It doesn't show a real cause and effect relationship, just a correlation. And yeah, a band with sales tends to be a band with decent marketing, thus more airplay, so unless they bring absolutely nothing new to the table, what they do bring will spread. Only rarely could a band with no original aspects gain a serious amount of followers, and this tends to happen by convincing the public that what they did was original even if it wasn't The Beatles, Hendrix, etc.
This is so rare it's barely worth mentioning, and is unlikely to ever happen again. If your idea of "perpetuating" rock is just keeping people listening to it, what the hell? Were they at risk of stopping? How many listeners do we need to maintain critical mass? Just because people bought Bon Jovi doesn't mean he "perpetuated" rock for those people. They might have bought something else, and even the worst case scenario, nothing, isn't bad. I haven't bought a new album in a while, but I'm not somehow devoid of rock and waiting for someone to come along and "perpetuate" it for me.
Representatives of the ship's company approached Captain Claude Cumberlege to ask for a one-day delay on departure; this would allow the sailors to have a full weekend of leave, give Perth-born personnel the chance to visit their families, and give personnel another chance to invite people aboard. Australian naval historians David Stevens and Tom Frame disagree on what happened next. Stevens states that Cumberledge assembled the ship's company in the early afternoon, read the Articles of War , lectured them on the seriousness of refusing duty, then ordered the stokers to go to their stations, which they did meekly.
Following the court-martial of the five ringleaders, there was debate among the public, in the media, and within government over the sentences; while most agreed that a mutiny had occurred, there were differences in opinion on the leniency or severity of the punishments imposed. In May , Australia participated in celebrations and naval activities associated with the visit of the Prince of Wales. Following the demise of German naval power in the Pacific the fleet unit concept was no longer seen as being relevant, and Australia did not have a clear role.
Australia returned to Sydney in November , and was paid off into reserve in December. Moreover, it is unlikely that the Australian Government would have agreed to such a suggestion given the prevailing political and financial conditions. As the Admiralty had decided to phase out inch guns and had stopped the manufacture of shells for these weapons shortly after the war, it would have been necessary to replace Australia ' s main armament once the Navy's stock of shells reached their expiry date given that it was not possible to produce replacement shells in Australia.
This was also not financially feasible for the government, particularly given the RAN's lack of interest in retaining the ship. The Washington Naval Treaty was a mutual naval arms limitation and disarmament treaty between the five major naval powers of the time: When Australia was decommissioned in , some of her equipment was removed for use in other ships, but after the November Cabinet decision confirming the scuttling, RAN personnel and private contractors began to remove piping and other small fittings.
The scuttling was originally scheduled for Anzac Day 25 April , but was brought forward to 12 April, so the visiting British Special Service Squadron could participate. There are two schools of thought surrounding the decision to scuttle the battlecruiser. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A Story of Australian Naval Aviation. Australia's Ships of War. British Battleships of World War One. Their Battles and Their Badges.
Frame, Tom; Baker, Kevin Naval Insurrections in Australia and New Zealand. The Story of the Royal Australian Navy. The Royal Australian Navy — The Official History of Australia in the War of — In Neilson, Keith; Kennedy, Greg. Jutland and After, May — December Second ed. Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War. The Royal Australian Navy. The Australian Centenary History of Defence.
In Bell, Christopher M. Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century: Naval policy and history. A Ship for a Nation". In Stevens, David; Reeve, John. The Navy and the Nation: The Influence of the Navy on Modern Australia. Cubby, Ben 13 April The Sydney Morning Herald. HMAS Australia, to ". Journal of the Australian Naval Institute. Archived from the original on 13 June Customers who viewed this item also viewed. Don't see what you're looking for? There was a problem completing your request.
Please try your search again later. Compare with similar items. Feedback If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support? Would you like to tell us about a lower price? See questions and answers. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. See all customer images. Read reviews that mention wireless charging works great wireless charger google pixel works well fingerprint sensor charging pad easy to install short version fast charge works perfectly fingerprint reader iphone 7 plus fingerprint wireless chargers make sure works as advertised back of the phone works well usb port.
Showing of reviews. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Mine worked well the first time I used it on my Pixel through a case, but after taking the case off and putting it back on, the phone would only charge slowly. Pulling the inductive charge pad off, I noticed cracking noises, and opened it up, to find that behind the coil is a very thin brittle black sheet - this is probably a ferrite sheet, and damaging it reduces the inductive charging efficiency.
I ordered a replacement charge receiver, installed it carefully without flexing behind an Maxboost mSnap Thin Case, and it has worked well for several weeks. The lock screen shows "charging", not "charging rapidly". I can verify that it works, and the short version is definitely the one to get for this phone, it JUST barely gets to the logo, didn't want it to cover it. I did have to stack 2 levels of these felt pads I bought from home depot to get the phone to sit high enough on the Itian charger so that it charges reliably though, since without it the receiver is a bit too low.
Anyway, sure you're wondering why only 3 stars, well, some people have complained that it's thicker than they've thought it would be, and they are right, but that's not really the reason why. The little bit of thickness wouldn't have been that bad if it was properly adhered to the back of the phone.
The problem is that it literally comes with just a small little bit of double sided tape right in the top middle of the pad, and that's it. So now, all of the edges are kind of sticking out from the phone a little bit, when I pick up my phone now I have to be super careful not to dislodge the receiver pad. It's not a terribly hard thing to fix though, I'm going to get some double-sided tape and tape around the edges, that should make it feel a bit more secured. Also, the plug doesn't plug all the way in, seems to be a bit too long.
In my phone, a full millimeter of the actual usb-c plug sticks out as if it's not plugged all the way in, but it's as far in as it would go. So the whole plug assembly sticks out about 3mm's from the bottom of my phone, getting in the way of my pinky when I'm trying to support my phone while using it one-handed.
Overall it still works, so I'm still going to use it. I'm sure the other options out there would probably have all of the same short-comings if not more so. So not saying not to get it, I think it's still super useful and convenient to have the wireless charging ability.
I'll continue using it, it's pretty nice for what it is. In case anyone is wondering, here are a few more things to consider: Yes, this will cover up your USB port. The plug does stick out a bit so it may be a little harder to get it to stand up straight on the wireless charger.
Copyright © 2017 · All Rights Reserved · Maine Council of Churches