Set and Setting: Timothy Leary’s Essential Safety Measure for Trying Psychedelics
- Alexandra A. Smith
The Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame Announces New Inductees
The Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame Announces New Inductees
(And I Couldn't Be Less Thrilled)
The politically correct thing to do would be to lavish praise on the Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame for the wonderful job it’s doing in selecting such a diverse group of inductees for the Class of 2021. The truth, though, is that I’ve been silently fuming, as I do every year when nominees and inductees are announced.
My problem is with the Hall’s lack of consistency and its failure to establish any qualitative criteria for inducting new members. What happened to the “rock” in the Rock n’ Rol1 Hall of Fame? How is it that soft pop acts like Abba, Brenda Lee, and Dusty Springfield are IN when legitimate rock acts like Ozzy Osbourne (solo), Smashing Pumpkins, and Iron Maiden are OUT? Why are the Bee Gees in? They made some outstanding pop records early on, then sold their souls down the river and cashed in on the disco craze—only to embarrass themselves with their matching sequin-encrusted bell-bottom jumpsuits and exposed chest rugs. And rock n’ rollers hated disco. HATED it. So why would the RnRHoF reward these helium-voiced cheese-mongers? They didn’t just start a joke; they became a joke. I mean, who doesn’t remember chuckling at Jimmy Fallon’s bearded Barry Gibb impersonation? It makes me wonder who’s going to be inducted next. Donna Summer? Oh, shit! They did induct Donna Summer (2013).
My problem is with the Hall’s lack of consistency and its failure to establish any qualitative criteria for inducting new members.
And I don’t understand why there are artists in there who are barely on my radar. I’ve been listening to rock, reading about rock, and watching movies and TV shows about rock for 40 years. I sometimes even study rock reference books (full disclosure: I’m a geek); so you’d think I’d be familiar with all of them. I know hundreds, maybe thousands, of obscure artists and can tell you all kinds of random facts about them. I am ridiculously aware of the rock n’ roll canon yet, upon perusing the list of Hall of Fame inductees, I see acts I’ve barely heard of: The Moonglows, The Blue Caps. How can this be? They couldn’t have made that much of an impact, could they?
One thing I’ve noticed about the RnRHoF is that it overdoes it on inclusiveness. The Hall attempts to serve as the Rap Hall of Fame too. Rap is a completely different animal with its own fan base. Hall founders may have had the best of intentions by incorporating rap, but it’s downright confusing to rock fans. Rap is popular enough, and has been around long enough, to warrant its own hall of fame. If the Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame was built to honor rock n’ roll, then that’s what it should do. It doesn’t make sense to honor rap artists when it was intended to commemorate rock n’ rollers. And if they are going to include rap artists, why not put country, jazz, and polka artists in there too?
The RnR Hall of Fame could use help establishing some viable criteria for induction. On the website, the stated goal is “to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development, and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame,” and “We shall consider factors such as an artist’s musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career, and the body of work, innovation, and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction.” Musical excellence? Is that how the Sex Pistols and the Ramones got in? I don’t think so.
The criteria leave more questions than answers. Perhaps we can do some refining.
For starters, I don’t think it’s asking too much for inductees to rock in some way—in sound or attitude. I’m not talking about some narrow Sammy Hagar “There’s Only One Way to Rock” version of rock n’ roll—all heavy riffs and flying V’s. Artists can rock without cranking the saturation level to 11. Perfect example: Tom Waits. He’s never been one to rely on a standard power chord, but he rocks by being so consistently original… and brilliant. So can’t we all agree and doesn’t it make sense that rock n’ roll hall of famers should, in some way, rock?
A second criterion might be fame—as the name implies. I don’t think the artist necessarily has to be a household name, but they should be someone relatively known among rock n’ roll listeners. Los Angeles band, Love, for instance, created one of the most critically acclaimed albums (Forever Changes) of the past 60 years, but somehow never achieved the level of fame necessary to enter the hallowed Hall. It’s safe to say that most casual rock fans have never even heard of them.
Can’t we all agree and doesn’t it make sense that rock n’ roll hall of famers should, in some way, rock?
I think the third criterion should be influence on other artists. Bands like Styx and Journey may have rocked, and they were certainly famous, but who exactly did they influence? Perhaps their respective tribute bands only. While the website pays lip service to “influence” and “significance,” RnRHoF doesn’t enforce it—at least not enough.
If the RnRHoF continues to elect non-rockers, it’s going to be mighty confusing for future generations to decipher what rock n’ roll really is. And I have to think that posterity was a major factor in the creation of the Hall. It’s about more than just honoring the groups and individuals who rocked; it’s about identifying the best of the bunch for the neophytes and the as-yet-unborn, so they can understand what rock n’ roll was and why it mattered. It would be a shame if we messed that up.
The criteria leave more questions than answers. Perhaps we can do some refining.
For starters, I don’t think it’s asking too much for inductees to rock in some way—in sound or attitude. I’m not talking about some narrow Sammy Hagar “There’s Only One Way to Rock” version of rock n’ roll—all heavy riffs and flying V’s. Artists can rock without cranking the saturation level to 11. Perfect example: Tom Waits. He’s never been one to rely on a standard power chord, but he rocks by being so consistently original… and brilliant. So can’t we all agree and doesn’t it make sense that rock n’ roll hall of famers should, in some way, rock?
A second criterion might be fame—as the name implies. I don’t think the artist necessarily has to be a household name, but they should be someone relatively known among rock n’ roll listeners. Los Angeles band, Love, for instance, created one of the most critically acclaimed albums (Forever Changes) of the past 60 years, but somehow never achieved the level of fame necessary to enter the hallowed Hall. It’s safe to say that most casual rock fans have never even heard of them.
If the RnRHoF continues to elect non-rockers, it’s going to be mighty confusing for future generations to decipher what rock n’ roll really is.
I think the third criterion should be influence on other artists. Bands like Styx and Journey may have rocked, and they were certainly famous, but who exactly did they influence? Perhaps their respective tribute bands only. While the website pays lip service to “influence” and “significance,” RnRHoF doesn’t enforce it—at least not enough.
If the RnRHoF continues to elect non-rockers, it’s going to be mighty confusing for future generations to decipher what rock n’ roll really is. And I have to think that posterity was a major factor in the creation of the Hall. It’s about more than just honoring the groups and individuals who rocked; it’s about identifying the best of the bunch for the neophytes and the as-yet-unborn, so they can understand what rock n’ roll was and why it mattered. It would be a shame if we messed that up.
Let’s take a look at this year’s Hall of Fame class and see who deserves the recognition and who doesn’t.
The Go-Gos—The Go-Gos released one fun, superb album in Beauty and the Beat in 1981. The two follow-up albums were okay, and then the Go-Gos were gone-gone. I understand the need to put pioneering female rockers in the Hall, but I think you need to go back a decade and give the credit to Fanny, a far superior all-female band that released five very good albums in the 70s. And where the hell is Suzi Quatro? In the early 70s, she too was rockin’ hard on her own in a male-dominated music industry. Those two artists are the true pioneers. By the time The Go-Gos came along, being a self-contained female band wasn’t really that unique. I don’t think they belong in the Hall.
Carole King—King released an undisputed soft-rock masterpiece fifty years ago in Tapestry— an iconic album that helped launched the singer-songwriter craze of the 70s. After that, her recording career was hit-or-miss.
But, man, could she write a song. Over 70 of her compositions have been recorded by other artists, and many of those songs were covered by dozens of artists—even hundreds of artists in the case of “You’ve Got a Friend,” “Will You Love Me Tomorrow,” and “(You Make Me Feel) Like a Natural Woman,” as well as several others. For this reason, I enthusiastically agree with her selection to the Hall of Fame.
Jay-Z—Jay-Z is a rapper, not a rock n’ roll artist. Why was he even nominated? Do I just have some phenomenal ear where I can tell the difference between rock and rap, and others can’t? But, seriously, if the Rock Hall committee is worried about the PC police knocking on their door, they should have inducted John Coltrane, who had a far more profound, wide-ranging influence on rock n’ roll than any rapper ever has.
Foo Fighters—Dave Grohl is a legend and a phenomenally talented one. The fact that he was regarded as the best drummer of the alternative rock era, and then stepped up to become the guitar-playing front man of another enormously successful band immediately following the dissolution of his previous band, is just, well, phenomenal. The problem I have with inducting Foo Fighters is that they never released a masterpiece. They’ve had a ton of songs on the radio and they put out nearly a dozen quality albums, but none of those albums are considered classics. I’m not opposed to them being in the Hall, but I want to go on record here saying that I have some reservations.
Todd Rundgren—Whoa! Rundgren wasn’t already in? What an oversight. The guy’s a musical genius with an astounding legacy of over three dozen studio albums. In 1972, he released the masterpiece Something/Anything?, which included a couple of big hits: “I Saw the Light” and “Hello It’s Me”. Instead of just cranking out another hit-filled album the following year, which he could have easily done, he released A Wizard, A True Star, another masterpiece, but one that didn’t have—couldn’t have had—any hit singles. The album was more of a showcase of his production and performance skills, thus the title.
Additionally, Rundgren produced many classic albums, including Meat Loaf’s Bat Out of Hell, XTC’s Skylarking, and The Psychedelic Fur’s Forever Now. He deserves to be in the RnR Hall and should have gone in about a quarter of a century ago.
Tina Turner—Tina was a huge sensation in the mid-80s. Her comeback story inspired many people, particularly women, and that’s important. For those who may not know, she was in an abusive marriage with her husband Ike Turner, and managed to get out by the skin of her teeth and return to stage glory as a solo artist. Phenomenal. No one can dispute that.
Let’s look at her solo career, though. She scored big-time with her 1984 album Private Dancer, which included the #1 hit “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” and two other hits: the title track, and “Better Be Good to Me.” Her follow-up was a highly regarded collaborative soundtrack for the movie Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, but she didn’t write one song on either album, which means there’s not a whole lot of difference between her and, say, Cher, Diana Ross, or any other diva who sings and doesn’t compose. Aside from those two records, there’s not a whole lot of special pertaining to her solo career. I can understand why she might be nominated, but I don’t think her career indicates musical excellence or artistic influence.
Besides, she’s already in the Rock Hall as half of Ike and Tina Turner. Does she really deserve to be a two-time inductee?
Being in the RnRHoF should mean something, and when less deserving acts are inducted, it diminishes the value of enshrinement. It becomes as meaningless as the Grammies. Winning a Grammy means nothing to most true artists, because Grammies just reflect how many streams an artist gets—or how much interest will be generated for the Grammies by honoring a particular artist. That’s why the Hall needs to develop clear criteria and stick to it.
I have a word of advice to the people who vote members into the RnRHoF: choose your inductees wisely if you want to maintain the interest of people who care about rock n’ roll. Otherwise, we might just get together and start a new, real Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame and force you to change the name of your less enlightened one to the Pop, Rock, Rap, or Whatever Hall of Fame.
Related: Interview with Todd Rundgren
