How would YOU fix the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame?

I am with you Oatsdad. I like the Hall of Fame. I think that it is a really cool place. I think that it also means quite a bit to many who get the honor of being inducted. Somebody like Madonna is rock and roll enough to me. She for sure deserves to be in my book. Green Day, Who cares? They have sold a lot of records and have made millions of music fans very happy through the years. It is likely that many folks that love Green Day have not heard the music that inspired them but what punk band has had the kind of career that Green Day has had?

Yes not being in though is criminal. They have made some incredible music. Phil Collins too. If nothing else, induct him as a drummer only.

 

Rock and Roll is a lot of different music. Rap? Yes include it! Johnny Cash is rock and roll to me! Marvin Gaye? Incredible music to me.

Bitches Brew? Rocks hard!

The minute that we put rock music on some pedestal and make it for the elite, it sucks! Probably 50% of my favorite rock songs are only 3 or 4 chords anyway. It's not like it took a doctorate in music theory to write Wild Thing, Hang on Sloopy or Louie Louie but dang, those songs are so a part of our culture of music today.

 

YES! That's precisely how I'd fix it too! What a complete waste of time and self-serving nonsense, is the RRHOF. Whose lame idea was it in the first place? By definition if everyone gets in it at some point, what gives any artist the "distinction" or grace of being part of it? It's a lot of self-defeating, posturing nonsense. Don't get me started on the Academy Awards......

I'm always reminded of that Woody Allen quote from "Annie Hall" where our hero says (paraphrasing): "They give out awards for that rubbish? Jeez, these guys give awards for anything!"

 

It's funny how often this suggestion comes up.

If it's the Popular Music Hall of Fame, you're going to need to induct Bing Crosby, Perry Como, and Barbra Streisand long before you reach the likes of Yes and Deep Purple.

If it's the Music Hall of Fame, you might as well start over, because only a tiny fraction of current inductees had any real impact on music in general (as opposed to rock and roll specifically).

 

I don't think a Popular Music Hall of Fame is a bad idea at all. And yeah, I'd induct Bing Crosby right alongside Deep Purple. Not kidding.

 

I think the R&RHOF has a far firmer grasp of "rock and roll" than most of the posters in this thread.

 

I'm with ya! White Christmas and Smoke On The Water are both essential to pop culture.

 

Totally hate the place, just the idea of it...oh nevermind, better stop now before i get started.

ANYways, i think that it will slowly die on it's own. They started inducting acts in 86, and the artists left for nomination haven't exactly had a monopoly on the music world at large for quite some time (and even during their peak years). My big thing about it when someone brings it up isn't who they're are/are not putting in, but, who eventually is there gonna be to leave out?!?! That days coming sooner than later...

Unless of course they do change the title or mission statement to make it a American/Pop museum, that opens up the decks for sure. It's just a glorified Hard Rock Cafe is all, but i fail to see what anyone gets out of looking at a costume or whatever, that's not the experience that makes me love music. Put the needle on the record, not the Born In The USA jeans on the flippin' mannequin!

 

For all the declarations of irrelevance and no-one-cares in this thread, I heard all about the induction selections the morning after. On ESPN -- which used the honored artists as bumper music throughout the morning -- and even my traffic-and-news station, which typically blows through the news in speed-reading fashion: "Coming up, tumbling fuel prices worldwide threaten the Russian economy, the danger of Ebola has not disappeared and Congress concludes what one member called his most frustrating year on the hill, but first some music from legendary rock and roll icon Lou Reed, who was joined by . . ."

Most people don't pay that much attention to the R&RHOF, they simply hear about it once a year, enjoy the show if they come across channel surfing, and park any thought of it until the same time next year. Only on these sort of boards do you read the kind of vituperation and separate-but-equal exclusions of girl groups, dance-based music, rap, or anything that isn't post-Beatles based guitar rock.

 

my sentiments exactly.

 

I think the "general public" tunes into the Rock Hall 3 times a year: when nominations are announced, when selectees are announced, and after the ceremony.

Otherwise, you're right - discussion of the Rock Hall and all its so-called idiocy is only a 365-day-a-year enterprise here and similar websites, much of which revolves around incessant, angry posts from people who take ample amounts of time to make sure we know that they don't care about the Rock Hall!

 

I wouldn't. The passion people have for whining about it is hilarious.

 

Carrot's point was that if people here are upset about "snubs" like Deep Purple, a true "Popular Music Hall of Fame" isn't going to make those folks happier. The acts they champion still won't be in - and they'd stand much less chance of ever getting in.

Even if it's called "Popular Music Since the Start of the Rock Era Hall of Fame" and limited to acts who were prominent from 1954 to date, Deep Purple and a bunch of other "forum fave snubs" aren't going to sniff the place because they'd have to induct so many others like Bing, Babs and Johnny Mathis first...

 

I would induct Chicago, Yes, Jethro Tull, Deep Purple, and Electric Light Orchestra.

 

Deep Purple was the biggest US album seller of 1973, started off bigger in the US than the UK with "Hush", and have maintained a popular place in music since they reformed in 1984. As with Yes, Deep Purple's popularity has no bearing on their not being honored, for they are more popular than scores of inductees and are a mammoth influence in rock as Metallica and scores of other rock bands will attest.

 

Shut it down.
It's a joke.

 

and my point is, we're reaching an era where you can look back and see that "rock and roll" - by a number of definitions - was only part of the musical/cultural fabric of the last 50+ years. it makes all of the handwringing about "who does/doesn't get in to the RnR HoF" seem awfully shortsighted.

personally, i'm up in the air about the Rock Hall. it's a nice idea, in theory. unfortunately, unless you're going by sales/chart stats, there's no objectively quantifiable criteria to determine who actually should or shouldn't get in.

and you know, it's a fun little debate to have with my friends. but when i think about the bigger picture, and how utterly political/school playground this whole thing gets...from the Rock Hall committee folks to Eddie Trunk bemoaning his favorite metal bands being ignored...well, that just sucks all the fun out of it, doesn't it?

 

Just to point out that specifically my point about making it more of an all encompassing HOF was not so certain acts like Deep Purple could now get in rather it being about every year we wouldn't have the argument (or as much) regarding bands being Rock and Roll or not.

 

But there'd be other arguments. For instance, people would say you can't induct Velvet Underground because they weren't "popular".

In many ways, the Rock Hall - or whatever it's called - is a no-win proposition. People are gonna find something to bitch about no matter what.

Arguing about the name always struck me as the most nit-picking of all the debates...

 

C-4.

 

I actually think the debates can be fun. Most of us like to create our own lists and charts and discuss what the best album or movie or chocolate bar is - halls of fame just do this on a bigger stage, and I think discussions of who should/shouldn't be in these places can be enjoyable.

But not when it gets down to some pedantic argument about "who's 'rock enough'" for the Rock Hall. THOSE are the arguments that drain the fun out of the discussions.

I think people should just accept the place for what it is and stop kvetching about the name. The name - and the way the place defines who qualifies as "rock and roll" - won't change, so I don't see the point of constant complaints about those areas...

 

True. It still annoys me that people get so stuck on the name when the ship has sailed on the RRHOF inducting only rock and roll acts for decades now.

 

Some have argued - - that the place never was a pure "rock and roll" institution. From the start, they inducted artists who couldn't be truly called "rock and roll".

I think people only gripe about inductees who "aren't rock and roll" when those people don't like the artists. I find it hard to see how James Taylor and Joni Mitchell are "rock and roll" but it seems like no one complains about them...

 

I've always felt "halls of fame" are just basically for commerce... I hate when myth and weepy-eyed romanticism get tied up in it... It's like like when folks forget Major League Baseball is nothing more than an industry....

Anyway, I think it'd be cool if Cleveland just housed a "Rock 'n' Roll museum" and forgot about all the "fame" and "inductee" bulls***.

I think traveling out there and seeing velvet trousers that Hendrix wore, a guitar that Marc Bolan used, or one of McCartney's old amps is a million times more entertaining than seeing the actual jerk-offs pat each others backs each year as though it all boils down to some weird quasi-high school pep rally.

Seriously.

 

Vote as many out as in each year.