Well. Others may disagree (and I might even agree with some of their points), but overall - to me - the rock ‘n’ roll Hall of Fame franchise is a nothing short of a complete farce.
Why? Because at the center of everything this franchise is a fully self contained financially generated cottage industry unto itself, and besides the valid points Chris made about given artists or groups either being snubbed or questionably included, (meaning acts or performers who really didn’t merit inclusion as ground breaking artists) it needs to continually induct people in order to just stay alive, like the shark that needs to be in perpetual motion in order to not die, or similar to you and I needing oxygen in order to live. Otherwise, why not just deduct EVERYBODY worthy right now? Why not add new inductees - say - every 5 yrs? Why drag it out on a yearly basis?
If you were to make a straight line projection based upon the current parameters of inclusion and the R&R HOF working to stay alive, they will out of necessity eventually get around to including everybody, and that probably means lame acts like the late Tim Tim. I wouldn’t doubt that for a second. And when they’ve run out of nominees to induct under the current rules and regulations it carries, you can safely bet they will change the requirement Chris mentioned of needing to have created your first album over 25 yrs ago, that’s kind of a no-brainer.
Beyond the glitz and glamour it would seem to me that financial aspect is apparently the basic calculus of this entire organization, and if (God forbid) they nominate the Go-go’s over some other far more deserving and thus far overlooked act or acts), any resulting public uproar and controversy this generates (along the lines of Go go’s defenders arguing against Go go’s detractors) will only serve as a distraction to our understanding how we’re all being played, and to strengthen their dubious existence.
And, let’s not overlook the following information I found on Google in a quick New York minute:
“While inductees get tickets for themselves, they must pay for additional guests or entourage members, sometimes costing up to $10,000 per extra ticket, to help manage venue capacity at the ceremony. Some artists, such as Steve Miller, have famously complained about these high guest ticket costs.”
“$10,000 per extra ticket, to help manage the venue capacity at the ceremony” ?!? In what universe do you need an extra $10,000 per ticket “to help manage the venue capacity?”
I rest my case. Like all of you reading this, I have a fairly good clue as to who merits a hall of fame status and it’s good enough for me, I don’t need this self serving bullshit cash cow of an organization telling me who’s who. I have complete contempt and utter disgust for this most transparent turd of a franchise. (In case that wasn’t obvious!) Said the one.
PS: Chris just informed me that the Go go’s WERE in fact inducted. In view of so many other deserving artists who were overlooked I’m no completely gob smacked. As Scrooge famously said in Dickens A Christmas Carol, “I’ll retire to Bedlam.”
My primary objection is the inclusion of bands that don't qualify as "rock" musicians. How do we distinguish rock music from other musical forms? In my world, rock music is generally identified as having two key characteristics — the backbeat with an emphasis on the 2nd and 4th beat, plus the musical quality of being intense. Most popular music has the backbeat, thus the distinction between popular and rock music is often a matter of the loudness and intensity of the music. Rock music gets people revved up. It is physically exciting music. To get inducted, I believe a band or artist should have a number of good songs that satisfy the definition of rock music.
There are exceptions, of course. Not all Pink Floyd songs rock, but many do, and the song Money (in 7/4 time) is a textbook example of rock, while Seamus the Dog is a blues.
I can list other special cases, but that's enough from me.
Given that criteria, it's clear that the Replacements and Pixies should be IN. Both bands are beloved and influential.
I agree. I like Sade, Willie Nelson, and NWA but they don't belong in a hall of fame for rock, just like they probably wouldn't nominate Johnny Cash to a hip hop hall of fame.
The Moody Blues are critically "dubious?" On what planet? Have you ever just smoked a fattie and listened to an album from start to finish? George Martin called them "criminally underrated," and for once he was right on. Easily one of all-time top ten bands.
I think the reputation of artists changes as time goes on. Given that, a lot of the artists you mention that have been snubbed so far will probably get their due later. Still, there is no question about the cultural impact of artists like ABBA, Genesis, and Chicago. While they might not have achieved the same level of acclaim as groups like The Smiths and The Pixies now do, more people can name songs by those former artists than the latter. So, yes, popularity seems to have something to do with who gets inducted. I think there will be people that will visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame now because artists like Phil Collins, Oasis, and Luther Vandross have made it in and, for better of for worse, it's an institution that does thrive on money and fans.
For what it's worth I'm hoping for The B-52s, Devo, Tori Amos, INXS, and Sarah McLachlan to get in one of these years!
The problem with using lists of the "best" songs from sources like Rolling Stone and other media outlets is that they sometimes try and add a bit of controversy to their lists. Some of that is just critics with opinions that aren't widely shared, but most is that your list won't get much attention if it's what everyone expects. No one will blink if I have The Beatles up at the top of my list of greatest artists, but you can bet people will talk about it if I include Nickelback in the top ten. (Which I wouldn't.) Using a lot of sources (as you did) alleviates that somewhat.
Talking about who gets in and who doesn't, sports halls of fame have similar problems. Do you induct the player who was the best to ever play a position, but only played for a few years? Or do you pick the guy who was in the top five at his position for fifteen straight years, but never number one?
They've mostly turned their noses up at post-punk and '80s alt from day one. Sales clearly take precedence over influence: Nirvana was inducted in their first year of eligibility while Pixies - one of their main influences - have never even been nominated.
R.E.M. were inducted first year, while their peers The Smiths and The Replacements are snubbed. Again, sales figures tell the tale.
Well. Others may disagree (and I might even agree with some of their points), but overall - to me - the rock ‘n’ roll Hall of Fame franchise is a nothing short of a complete farce.
Why? Because at the center of everything this franchise is a fully self contained financially generated cottage industry unto itself, and besides the valid points Chris made about given artists or groups either being snubbed or questionably included, (meaning acts or performers who really didn’t merit inclusion as ground breaking artists) it needs to continually induct people in order to just stay alive, like the shark that needs to be in perpetual motion in order to not die, or similar to you and I needing oxygen in order to live. Otherwise, why not just deduct EVERYBODY worthy right now? Why not add new inductees - say - every 5 yrs? Why drag it out on a yearly basis?
If you were to make a straight line projection based upon the current parameters of inclusion and the R&R HOF working to stay alive, they will out of necessity eventually get around to including everybody, and that probably means lame acts like the late Tim Tim. I wouldn’t doubt that for a second. And when they’ve run out of nominees to induct under the current rules and regulations it carries, you can safely bet they will change the requirement Chris mentioned of needing to have created your first album over 25 yrs ago, that’s kind of a no-brainer.
Beyond the glitz and glamour it would seem to me that financial aspect is apparently the basic calculus of this entire organization, and if (God forbid) they nominate the Go-go’s over some other far more deserving and thus far overlooked act or acts), any resulting public uproar and controversy this generates (along the lines of Go go’s defenders arguing against Go go’s detractors) will only serve as a distraction to our understanding how we’re all being played, and to strengthen their dubious existence.
And, let’s not overlook the following information I found on Google in a quick New York minute:
“While inductees get tickets for themselves, they must pay for additional guests or entourage members, sometimes costing up to $10,000 per extra ticket, to help manage venue capacity at the ceremony. Some artists, such as Steve Miller, have famously complained about these high guest ticket costs.”
“$10,000 per extra ticket, to help manage the venue capacity at the ceremony” ?!? In what universe do you need an extra $10,000 per ticket “to help manage the venue capacity?”
I rest my case. Like all of you reading this, I have a fairly good clue as to who merits a hall of fame status and it’s good enough for me, I don’t need this self serving bullshit cash cow of an organization telling me who’s who. I have complete contempt and utter disgust for this most transparent turd of a franchise. (In case that wasn’t obvious!) Said the one.
PS: Chris just informed me that the Go go’s WERE in fact inducted. In view of so many other deserving artists who were overlooked I’m no completely gob smacked. As Scrooge famously said in Dickens A Christmas Carol, “I’ll retire to Bedlam.”
Speaking of dumb awards shows, I lost my innocence in February 1979 when A Taste of Honey beat Elvis Costello for the Best New Artist Grammy.
I was only 16, but I knew it was wrong.
Brutal
My primary objection is the inclusion of bands that don't qualify as "rock" musicians. How do we distinguish rock music from other musical forms? In my world, rock music is generally identified as having two key characteristics — the backbeat with an emphasis on the 2nd and 4th beat, plus the musical quality of being intense. Most popular music has the backbeat, thus the distinction between popular and rock music is often a matter of the loudness and intensity of the music. Rock music gets people revved up. It is physically exciting music. To get inducted, I believe a band or artist should have a number of good songs that satisfy the definition of rock music.
There are exceptions, of course. Not all Pink Floyd songs rock, but many do, and the song Money (in 7/4 time) is a textbook example of rock, while Seamus the Dog is a blues.
I can list other special cases, but that's enough from me.
Given that criteria, it's clear that the Replacements and Pixies should be IN. Both bands are beloved and influential.
I agree. I like Sade, Willie Nelson, and NWA but they don't belong in a hall of fame for rock, just like they probably wouldn't nominate Johnny Cash to a hip hop hall of fame.
The Moody Blues are critically "dubious?" On what planet? Have you ever just smoked a fattie and listened to an album from start to finish? George Martin called them "criminally underrated," and for once he was right on. Easily one of all-time top ten bands.
One of the fun things about the Rock Hall is what one person considers dubious is vital to another
I’m a little salty about the B-52s being left out lol
I think the reputation of artists changes as time goes on. Given that, a lot of the artists you mention that have been snubbed so far will probably get their due later. Still, there is no question about the cultural impact of artists like ABBA, Genesis, and Chicago. While they might not have achieved the same level of acclaim as groups like The Smiths and The Pixies now do, more people can name songs by those former artists than the latter. So, yes, popularity seems to have something to do with who gets inducted. I think there will be people that will visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame now because artists like Phil Collins, Oasis, and Luther Vandross have made it in and, for better of for worse, it's an institution that does thrive on money and fans.
For what it's worth I'm hoping for The B-52s, Devo, Tori Amos, INXS, and Sarah McLachlan to get in one of these years!
The problem with using lists of the "best" songs from sources like Rolling Stone and other media outlets is that they sometimes try and add a bit of controversy to their lists. Some of that is just critics with opinions that aren't widely shared, but most is that your list won't get much attention if it's what everyone expects. No one will blink if I have The Beatles up at the top of my list of greatest artists, but you can bet people will talk about it if I include Nickelback in the top ten. (Which I wouldn't.) Using a lot of sources (as you did) alleviates that somewhat.
Talking about who gets in and who doesn't, sports halls of fame have similar problems. Do you induct the player who was the best to ever play a position, but only played for a few years? Or do you pick the guy who was in the top five at his position for fifteen straight years, but never number one?
good stuff. I’ve long called it the Popular Music Hall of Fame and have been happily using that whenever anyone gripes “that’s not rock & roll.”
I agree that at times inductees have more qualified for the “hall of very good” then an actual Hall of Fame. (and even then Foreigner doesn’t rank)
They've mostly turned their noses up at post-punk and '80s alt from day one. Sales clearly take precedence over influence: Nirvana was inducted in their first year of eligibility while Pixies - one of their main influences - have never even been nominated.
R.E.M. were inducted first year, while their peers The Smiths and The Replacements are snubbed. Again, sales figures tell the tale.
The pixies never being nominated is insane
Every induction since 1995 is an utter disappointment while The Meters are still on the outside looking in.
The pixies have been eligible since 2012. The smiths since 2009. The replacement since 2006