Do you think "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" is anti-rock and roll?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mr. In Between on March 15, 2011 at 1:51pm

The artists I'm really passionate about don't make it to that place.

 

But I hear what you're saying. I guess I don't care either way about the artists that make it to that place - I mean they are/were great and all but just not relevant or making great music anymore.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Ratcliffe on March 15, 2011 at 1:53pm

I guess it would be more accurately called a Rock n Roll Memorial, but that's politically incorrect for the rocknrollers who are still alive when they make it in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. In Between on March 15, 2011 at 7:11pm

aww screw this pc crap - it is what is  - just like you just said - a rock n roll memorial. :-)

 

Alot of these artists inducted have left an incredible body of work behind and sadly their best days are behind them and now they are releasing stuff from their vaults and/or live recordings to help them in their golden age. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just the way it all goes.

 

What is the advantage of being inducted to this rock n roll memorial?

 

Do artists get free meals at the grocery store or a free tank of gas every now and then?

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Ratcliffe on March 16, 2011 at 12:22pm

LOL The living ones get to be on TV, I think.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Schwieger on March 15, 2011 at 8:42pm

First, any place that names Neil Diamond in to a "hall of fame" is unworthy of debate, period.  Rock and roll he ain't.  (Love on the Rocks, anyone?) 

However, given that, I think your premise fails to take into account the inevitable adoption of the artist's traits who has "gone too far" into the mainstream [read establishment].  For example, The New York Dolls--early 70's transvestites who morph into million selling Twisted Sister. . .(not talent wise, but the whole "shock value" becomes passe...).  So by the time that the artist who somehow "qualifies" for the RR HOF--their signature no longer sets them apart from the "establishment" anyway. They have lost the ability to be "anti-establishment." 

So, for the most part, admission to that building does nothing more than signify you can hang with Neil Diamond amongst the "greats."   Wow.  Bring on Toby Beau.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. In Between on March 16, 2011 at 9:59am

I personally like Neil Diamond - the 60's Neil and some 70's stuff - but I'm not a Neil apologist.

 

I think he could def get a spot in the RnR Memorial Temple - his music contained elements of different genres.

 

So while Neil might not fit into 'your' definition of what rock n roll is - he def has a place there whether you like it or not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Ratcliffe on March 16, 2011 at 12:55pm

This conversation brings me back to the idea that awards are just as much based on the people who give them as they are on who receives them.  I downloaded the HoF annual report to see if I could get a clue there. The good news is that they seem to be making their money mostly from admissions, and have programs for the community. Cleveland is a pretty tough sell for the rich and famous though. They only have the award dinner there once every three years. I could not find anything on who chooses inductees for the HoF.

So I did a little wiki-research.  My favorite quote on the page:

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has garnered criticism for allegedly allowing the nomination process to be controlled by a few individuals,^[4] nominating too many artists in too many genres that are not entirely rock,^[5] ignoring entire rock genres,^[6] and using technicalities to induct groups who may not have been among the top vote getters.^[7] The surviving members of the Sex Pistols, who were inducted in 2006, refused to attend the ceremony, calling the museum a "piss stain."^[8]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Ratcliffe on March 17, 2011 at 1:42pm

I don't know if Neil Diamond should be in there or not., but I don't care for him personally.

I have started to wonder whose definition of rock and roll they are using. An fb friend of mine was a rock critic in the 60s and 70s for the New York Times and Rolling Stone (I think). RnR HoF has never polled him. He became curious as to whether his peers heard from HoF.

 

I feel kind of funny going on about this with the horror that is going  on in Japan, but I am really out of my depth with earthquake/tsunami/nuclear meltdown outside of donating a few bucks. So I am just going to keep on pluggin' with  what I got.sigh.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ted Cogswell on March 29, 2011 at 3:17pm

There's a very good reason that they keep their selection process a mystery - if it were completely transparent, everyone would see what an old boys club it is and they wouldn't have as much credibility. Their inductions of decidedly NON-rock 'n' roll artists wouldn't be as distressing if there weren't so many greas who are undeniably rock 'n' roll that are being ignored. Genres like punk and metal are represented by only a few token representatives, and others like progressive rock are virtually ignored all together. The personal tastes of Jann Wenner and his buddies seems to be the main factor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Ratcliffe on March 29, 2011 at 5:12pm

I agree, Ted. 

 

I facebook messaged 3 rock journalists from the 60s if they had ever been contacted by RnR HoF. All of them had worked for Rolling Stone and traveled with bands back then.

• One said he had been contacted.
• One refused to comment because a relative had just been inducted.
• One hadn't ever been at all. The one that hadn't ever been contacted still writes about music for the NYTimes.

It would seem to me, for voting to be fair, that all 3 should've been polled at least once in the past 25 years.

----->I have hung out with a few really good rock and roll guys, and they all listen to jazz and protorock (Jackie Brenston, Jimmy Preston, Louis Jourdan) as well as Howlin' Wolf, etc. I can see why they would complete HoF. If they want to have a section about them, it should be a separate list. Very separate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ted Cogswell on March 29, 2011 at 5:42pm

Well, I have no problem at all with proto-rock artists being included. It is one of the least of their inconsistencies IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Collins on March 30, 2011 at 6:10am

Living in the Akron area, I've been there several times. We just had a thread about the HOF over at vsplanet, and my comment was - as others have stated - that it's much too inclusive. Imagine the baseball hall of fame inducting a bunch of cricket players, or the football hall of fame a bunch of rugby players. I'm a blues fan, and I can see the value in some sort of "blues roots" display, but when you have what's ostensibly a rock hall debating whether to induct Washboard Sam or Ma Rainey, I think you've gone overboard.

 

I pitched a rock, pop & soul daily desk calendar to one of the founding guys in Cleveland - he said it looked good, but that everything was controlled by the people in New York. I think that was a big problem from the very beginning...it's Jann Wenner's vision. If a group of Cleveland rock 'n' roll fanatics had been in charge (and there are plenty of them), the place would have turned out way cooler, IMHO. Still, there's way too much great stuff there not to go at least once.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page