At some point in the 90s rock congealed into a category of white boys with loud guitars, a variant that used to be called hard rock or heavy rock. The NME Encyclopedia of Rock in the 1970s included everyone from Clannad to Gil Scott Heron. Rock then was difficult to define technically but everyone knew what it meant (not-jazz?) and it embraced the vast majority of popular music. A similar narrowing has happened to the term “pop”. My impression is that the definition was largely driven by radio who wanted to cultivate a particular audience. Rock and roll was a distinct culture that emerged in the 1950s and everything that’s happened since (including hip hop) and much of what fed directly into it is appropriate to the HOF.
The 60/70s white guitar god archetype became not just the standard but supposedly encapsulated rock n roll itself. I try my best these days not to bring race into everything or anything. It gets reductive pretty fast. But you notice certain patterns. The Chuck Barrys and Little Richards of the world must make way for Elvis's and Jerry Lewis's. Not saying the latter weren't talented. They were generationally so - even Chuck D ultimately walked back his Elvis snub. But radio and record execs followed the path of least resistance - put a white face on a product to reach a larger market. Fine. But when pathways to black rock artists started getting blocked commercially, that energy had to go elsewhere: funk, soul, hip hop, even techno.
I remember as a young kid listening to DMC say that he's the king of rock, scratching my head, thinking, why would a rap artist say such a thing? And it hit me one day. Rap was rock and roll. Rock and roll was never about just guitars. It is an attitude, it's movement, it is an energy. It literally says it in the name. Black American artists simply adapted and subverted those systems that excluded them. Many self-appointed gatekeepers like Jann Wenner resent that. And it is frustrating as it is unfortunate.
Obviously black or white guys and girls with loud guitars also qualify (I’m not telling Living Color or Sleater-Kinney they’re not rock!) but the category did devolve into a sort of Vans Warped world of suburban boys. The term “rock” now seems to symbolise something quite reactionary.
I'm definitely not telling them either. They are definitely rock. I remember the awkwardness Living Color had to deal with in the prime of their career because radio couldn't put them in a neat little race-defined box. So-called black radio wouldn't touch them. At times it felt like they were treated like a novelty. Shame.
Agreed. Good points. In the end, there is no real method as to who gets in and who does not. It's simply a mix of recency bias and regular old bias that sets the tone. They think Sheryl Crow is Hall worthy, but Boston not so. At least not yet, I guess you could say. Personal taste plays a massive part for the fans, as well as the 'voters.' I think Supertramp should be in. And maybe they will one day. But the Hall is more inclined to add Rage Against the Machine instead. And that's ok. I like them. A rock/music hall of fame with Foo Fighters and not Three Dog Night or Jethro Tull just feels odd to many music fans out there. Then it just becomes a back and forth between who likes what, why them and not the other, and does anyone at the Hall really 'get it' about rock n' roll music old and new. I look at it this way: If Paul McCartney put out a video clip on social media tomorrow saying Boston should be in the Rock Hall, they'd be in. That's about how it works.
The Rock Hall is mostly nonsense, a completely biased entity that gets its yearly week of the music/culture spotlight when they annoy/excite music fans who happen to care. Foo Fighters and Rage Against the Machine getting the nod is fine, but somehow Foreigner is persona non grata. That makes no sense regardless of how someone feels about the band. There is no rhyme or reason to the Rock Hall. That's what gives them attention, as well as scorn. I don't care that the Go-Gos are in, I love them. But to pretend Boston and INXS and Supertramp and Three Dog Night and The Smiths and (insert whoever else should be in) are somehow less worthy is silly.
Bryan Adams hasn't been inducted yet. Why is that? Does his resume not match up to Billy Idol? Like I said, there's no real structure, just a lot of personal bias that has corrupted the place for a long time. Still, I am happy for every single artist that gets in. I don't personally think the 'vote' matters all that much. It's all just marketing. When I think rock hall, I think J. Geils Band, not Miles Davis. So you are correct: 'The Rock Hall Was Never Just About Rock."
That's both good and bad... and there's still work to do.
I enjoyed your take on the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. You're one of the few fans I've run across concentrating on what the hall includes. While discussing the hall of fame, most fans will not say what they like, they mainly complain about two things: (1) one of their favorite artists isn't getting their respect (by getting inducted), while other artists they consider "inferior" have been included & got their moment in the spotlight; and (2) I hear a lot of grumbling about including non-rock artists -- even if they have impeccable credentials. Thanks for your focus on inclusivity, but perhaps they should have named it the "Pop Music Hall of Fame" instead?
My favorite part of the thumbnail gif is David Sanborn just being stuck in the middle of the shot
The fundamental category-error inspiring g all these technical, political, + pointlessly tail-chasing arguments can be boiled down to this:
It's not a "Rock Hall".
It's a Big Business Hall.
Everyone enshrined in there was "Big Business" for somebody; be it the Erteguns, David Geffen, Mo Austin, Jann Wenner, etc.
That Business also needs a museum, bc now it's mostly dead; while rock music and culture is very much not.
At some point in the 90s rock congealed into a category of white boys with loud guitars, a variant that used to be called hard rock or heavy rock. The NME Encyclopedia of Rock in the 1970s included everyone from Clannad to Gil Scott Heron. Rock then was difficult to define technically but everyone knew what it meant (not-jazz?) and it embraced the vast majority of popular music. A similar narrowing has happened to the term “pop”. My impression is that the definition was largely driven by radio who wanted to cultivate a particular audience. Rock and roll was a distinct culture that emerged in the 1950s and everything that’s happened since (including hip hop) and much of what fed directly into it is appropriate to the HOF.
Well said.
The 60/70s white guitar god archetype became not just the standard but supposedly encapsulated rock n roll itself. I try my best these days not to bring race into everything or anything. It gets reductive pretty fast. But you notice certain patterns. The Chuck Barrys and Little Richards of the world must make way for Elvis's and Jerry Lewis's. Not saying the latter weren't talented. They were generationally so - even Chuck D ultimately walked back his Elvis snub. But radio and record execs followed the path of least resistance - put a white face on a product to reach a larger market. Fine. But when pathways to black rock artists started getting blocked commercially, that energy had to go elsewhere: funk, soul, hip hop, even techno.
I remember as a young kid listening to DMC say that he's the king of rock, scratching my head, thinking, why would a rap artist say such a thing? And it hit me one day. Rap was rock and roll. Rock and roll was never about just guitars. It is an attitude, it's movement, it is an energy. It literally says it in the name. Black American artists simply adapted and subverted those systems that excluded them. Many self-appointed gatekeepers like Jann Wenner resent that. And it is frustrating as it is unfortunate.
Obviously black or white guys and girls with loud guitars also qualify (I’m not telling Living Color or Sleater-Kinney they’re not rock!) but the category did devolve into a sort of Vans Warped world of suburban boys. The term “rock” now seems to symbolise something quite reactionary.
I'm definitely not telling them either. They are definitely rock. I remember the awkwardness Living Color had to deal with in the prime of their career because radio couldn't put them in a neat little race-defined box. So-called black radio wouldn't touch them. At times it felt like they were treated like a novelty. Shame.
Agreed. Good points. In the end, there is no real method as to who gets in and who does not. It's simply a mix of recency bias and regular old bias that sets the tone. They think Sheryl Crow is Hall worthy, but Boston not so. At least not yet, I guess you could say. Personal taste plays a massive part for the fans, as well as the 'voters.' I think Supertramp should be in. And maybe they will one day. But the Hall is more inclined to add Rage Against the Machine instead. And that's ok. I like them. A rock/music hall of fame with Foo Fighters and not Three Dog Night or Jethro Tull just feels odd to many music fans out there. Then it just becomes a back and forth between who likes what, why them and not the other, and does anyone at the Hall really 'get it' about rock n' roll music old and new. I look at it this way: If Paul McCartney put out a video clip on social media tomorrow saying Boston should be in the Rock Hall, they'd be in. That's about how it works.
The Rock Hall is mostly nonsense, a completely biased entity that gets its yearly week of the music/culture spotlight when they annoy/excite music fans who happen to care. Foo Fighters and Rage Against the Machine getting the nod is fine, but somehow Foreigner is persona non grata. That makes no sense regardless of how someone feels about the band. There is no rhyme or reason to the Rock Hall. That's what gives them attention, as well as scorn. I don't care that the Go-Gos are in, I love them. But to pretend Boston and INXS and Supertramp and Three Dog Night and The Smiths and (insert whoever else should be in) are somehow less worthy is silly.
Bryan Adams hasn't been inducted yet. Why is that? Does his resume not match up to Billy Idol? Like I said, there's no real structure, just a lot of personal bias that has corrupted the place for a long time. Still, I am happy for every single artist that gets in. I don't personally think the 'vote' matters all that much. It's all just marketing. When I think rock hall, I think J. Geils Band, not Miles Davis. So you are correct: 'The Rock Hall Was Never Just About Rock."
That's both good and bad... and there's still work to do.
I enjoyed your take on the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. You're one of the few fans I've run across concentrating on what the hall includes. While discussing the hall of fame, most fans will not say what they like, they mainly complain about two things: (1) one of their favorite artists isn't getting their respect (by getting inducted), while other artists they consider "inferior" have been included & got their moment in the spotlight; and (2) I hear a lot of grumbling about including non-rock artists -- even if they have impeccable credentials. Thanks for your focus on inclusivity, but perhaps they should have named it the "Pop Music Hall of Fame" instead?
John Howard
Fort Worth, Texas