Rock n Roll hall of Fame-WHAT THE HELL? (1 Viewer)

[Sean A]

Correction: Bowie is both a "hip critic's darling" AND "very well known". Besides, many of the acts you mentioned as "very well known" are also beloved by critics...



To clarify my point, you kinda have to fit in at least one of those categories to get in, it seems. It helps to be in both, like several of those I mentioned appear to be .

So you can be popular and critically acclaimed (Dylan, Bowie, Prince) or you can be just critically acclaimed (VU, Costello)...

But you CAN'T be just popular without much critical acclaim and get in (Neil Diamond, Moody Blues, Monkees, Sabbath, Judas Priest, Rush )

 

[RickGr]

I think longevity needs to be a criteria for HOF consideration and it seems its not. The Pretenders, while I like them just did not have a long burning candle in music. The Moody Blues is a band that never has gotten consideration yet in the late 60's into the early 70's they were very inovative. I remember when To Our Childrens Children Children was release and most FM rock radio considered it a major event.
ELO is another, one that fused cellos and violins into rock music yet not even a nomination.
I agree with many of the posts here about early metal bands.
I do not think The Sex Pistols were around long enough to be considered.

 

[Brett_B]

When it comes to Rush, I just have to shake my head.

Rush has been together, and performing for over 30 years.

They have released a total of 29 albums (which includes 5 live albums, and several greatest hits albums). Rush has 22 gold albums, 14 platinum, and 3 multi-platinum.

To me, the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame is a joke! They are basically telling musicians that if you want to be in the hall of fame, just put out one stellar album and call it quits. That way there will be a lot of mystery surrounding you.

Sorry for the rant!

 

[John McM]

I think it's all opinion, while I agree that the apex of the Pretenders' career came in their first 5 years and 3 albums (1980-1984), I think they've definately kept making good music, even if only 3 people buy their newer product. Chrissie and the ever-rotating door of other members had song brilliant music on Loose Screw, but it was on a small label and they were so far off the mainstream radar by then that nobody bought it.

 

[Max F]

Neil Diamond is not in either. Yeah i give up, the Hall of Fame is a joke. BTW, this is another good song that Deep Purple did (redid): Kentucky Woman.

 

[Eric Peterson]

It looks like the Hall is finally trying to right some of it's previous stilts.

Black Sabbath & Lynyrd Skynyrd are finally going in along with Blondie, Miles Davis, & The Sex Pistols.

 

[Vegas 1]

What about the Dave Clark Five? They IMHO deserve to be inducted. Someday!

 

[Craig S]

Interesting discussion.

Was glad to hear of Sabbath, Skynyrd, & the Pistols getting in. All deserved. Yeah, the Pistols were short-lived, but they had an enormous impact.

Blondie... eh, they're on the edge as far as I'm concerned. A bunch of pleasant singles, but nowhere near the influence and inventiveness of say, the Talking Heads. I personally would not have voted for them - there are many more deserving artists on the outside looking in.

And Miles... well, Miles was certainly one of the MOST influential musicians of the 20th century, but I sure don't associate him with rock. However, I'm sure he's in because of "Bitches Brew", which begat the entire jazz/rock fusion tree branch. Guess you can't argue with that.

So, now that we have our first true metal RHOF member, maybe there's a glimmer of hope that we'll get a prog band or two in the future? King Crimson (always a critical darling even after prog became uncool) would seem to be the obvious first choice, although I think Yes and Genesis qualify.

And speaking of Genesis...

Why the HELL is Peter Gabriel not in??? He's had the long solo career; he has always had critical respect; he's had commercial success (including one of the touchstone albums of the 80s, "So"), he's always pushing the musical envelope; he's a video pioneer; he's certainly been influential; and for a quarter-century he's been one of the foremost champions of "world" music, both in incorporating exotic (to Western ears) sounds into his own work, and in boosting the careers of artists such as Youssou N'Dour via his Real World label. He became eligible in (I believe) 2002, and he should have been inducted that year. How can Blondie get in when Gabriel is still out in the cold? It's unfathomable.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I could not agree more with every single point that you made.

Blondie is definitely a borderline act, and the fact that they beat out Peter Gabriel is absolutely mind boggling. I thought that Gabriel was immediate first ballot entry, but this should have been his third or fourth. ????????????

My view the whole Sabbath thing is that they are trying to pave the road for Metallica who could not possibly go in as the first metal act without riots breaking out. In all seriousness, I do not think that they belong until Judas Priest and Iron Maiden enter, but I see those as being longshots.

I agree with you on the prog thing too. Although I'm not a big fan of the genre, it is hard to contest what it has done for music, and the longevity of some of the acts. King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, & Rush all belong. I have always considered the Hall to be one of those places that honors the critical darlings, and this is one of the biggest holes in my theory since all of these bands have been ignored despite their critical successes.

 

[Brian Perry]

Blondie has to be one of the weakest choices ever.

 

[Jan H]

Once again the Hall of Shame screws the pooch (at least they got Sabbath and the Sex Pistols right). It's going to really bug me over the next few years when shitty New Wave bands start getting in like Flock of Seagulls, Thompson Twins, etc. in favor of prog giants like Yes, Genesis, and the most deserving of all, IMO, Rush. What a joke!

BLONDIE??

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I could - and would. Fusion was an insubstantial genre that produced little meaningful work and had little impact on popular music. It never really took off - why would influencing THAT get you into the HOF?

Miles doesn't belong in the R&R HOF. He's an absurd choice...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Hard to argue. They're stronger than some like Percy Sledge or Frankie Lymon or the Flamingos or Ritchie Valens or Brenda Lee but inferior to most. Frankly, I think they made it because they're still together to play the ceremony...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Flock and TT ain't ever getting in - don't get carried away because of Blondie. They were more popular/influential in their time and still are around - can't say that for the other two.

But Blondie IS an odd choice. If you want an act of that generation, why not pick the Cure? Much better selection, and they're still together...

 

[TheLongshot]

That's the thing, tho. Rags like Rolling Stone since the late 70s look down on progressive rock as being "pretentious". The fact that the Sex Pistols are getting in before any prog act is proof of that.

(Not that I don't think the Sex Pistols aren't deserving. They certainly the poster boys of punk, it is just the timing I question.)

Jason

 

[David Hobbes]

why do the Sex Pistols belong?

they are another choice that lends creedance that the RRHOF picks critical darlings instead of legitimate artists..

the sex pistols may have help foster in punk rock but that was mostly image and not musical ability....

 

[BrianB]

I'd be suprised if there are many musicians who really care about getting into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. It seems to be the fans who are rushing to defend the honour of their favourite artists.

 

[Danny Tse]

Is Duran Duran or Madonna eligible yet?

Van Halen not in yet?

 

[Stu Rosen]

I'm someone who shares more than a little in taste with "critics' darlings," and someone who fully understands why Rush, Genesis and other prog rock or stadium bands haven't been inducted by the critics. My only comment is that you may not agree with the choices or omissions, but they are consistent with those critical standards. Don't make the mistake of writing it all off as some sort of clique-like behavior that doesn't correspond to a band's worth.

When you look at the musical world through the eyes of most critics:

1. Music that keeps close to R&B and other roots music is valued over the more grandiose.

2. Sales are irrelevant.

3. Feeling is valued over instrument proficiency.

4. "Influential" doesn't matter if you don't value the supposedly influential artist in the first place. Pick an artist you hate who has a score of copycats and consider whether "influential" sways your opinion of that artist.

5. "Influential" matters if you've effected a (desired) sea change in music. Ray Charles, who was one of the first to move from gospel to secular, was influential and a pioneer. Figuring a way to bring punk values (if not sounds) into the mainstream (see: Blondie) is valued where space jams are not. In the mind of the critics, Rush merely spawned a bunch of other similarly overblown culprits and that sort of behavior shouldn't be rewarded. (Please don't hurt me - I'm just explaining the thought process...)

6. Less is more. A great 3-minute single kicks the crap out of an album-length suite.

I could go on. You don't have to agree with any or all of these criteria, and given the bands that are being championed by most of the posts, of course you disagree with all of this. Ultimately, though, this is all about the HOF gatekeepers deciding that some music is worthy and other music is not. You can hate the choices, but from where I'm sitting, the choices are consistent with the criteria being applied.

At the end of the day, though, who cares if your favorites, or mine, are in or out of the HOF? I can't think of anything that has less effect on what I enjoy and hate.

 

[Jan H]

Hard to argue with that, Stu, and I completely agree that those are the HOF's criteria for induction. It's the criteria itself that is worthy of attacking, IMO. Frankly, the only time I think of the HOF is when one of my favorite bands gets passed over.

How would you answer these questions, though.

1. Why did it take Black Sabbath 10 years to be inducted into the Hall? Though I'm not much of a fan, I recognize their huge influence over an entire genre of rock and roll, a genre that is founded in blues music, the ultimate source of all American popular music.

2. What makes Queen (the ultimate in grandiose overblown pomposity) more worthy of induction than Rush? It certainly isn't a folksy 'roots' approach, nor is it their deep, Dylan-esque socially-concious lyrical content, nor is it their concise 3-minute ditties? (Bohemian Rhapsody, anyone?) I would argue that it is precisely their grandiosity (and their technical proficiency) that got them in.

3. Van Halen is not in the HOF, but _______________ is? This one is truly a head-scratcher. The guitarist is only the most revered since Hendrix and they were the essence of good time hard rock music for over a decade.