Rock and Roll Hall Fame Class of 2020 is...

Depeche Mode is in before...

Kraftwerk

ffs.

 

It's a rock 'n' roll context. Not just rock. It could be argued that a lot of rock music has very little to do with rock 'n' roll, except being a safe and bland sanitised version of it.

 

I love Depeche Mode but that's a strange one. Perhaps it's because Depeche Mode sometimes use guitars?!

 

Isn't "rock and roll" seen as an ERA, one that began around 1954-1955 or so? In that case, your Whitney's and your Biggie Smalls' of the world do fit because they came along during the rock era and had big success even if they didn't fit the actual "rock and roll genre" no different than what was coming out of Motown had little to do in the 60s with what was coming out of Britain, yet it's accepted that that's part of the rock and roll era

 

Watch this:

https://www.amazon.com/History-Rock-Roll-Sounds-Soul/dp/6303394132

 

Good lord. Every year, we have this same inane debate. From Day 1, the R&RHoF has included non rock artists in the mix. They've included soul, country, rap and jazz artists. This shouldn't be some great shock or outrage by this point. Did all the people who are objecting to Whitney Houston complain as vigorously about Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding? It is what it is, folks, just accept it.

I don't put any particular stock in who the Hall picks. To be honest, with the exception of T. Rex, none of this year's picks do much for me personally. I don't care about the Oscars or the Grammys either--and in my view the latter has a far worse track record overall than the R&RHoF. Life is full of injustice. When will the elite taste-makers validate my high personal standards?!

 

I think much like The Cure last year, they're a safer entry for the RNRHOF people to induct because they still sell tickets and could drag in butts to fill seats. I don't think anybody in 1984 would've ever predicted that Depeche Mode would become one of the most enduring and reliable bands of their era, still selling arenas when acts who were bigger at the time are lucky to fill up theaters.

 

You're making pretty extraordinarily broad claims when you say 'never' and 'no one' in support of what is essentially an argument from reductio ad absurdum: "she isn't and never was considered this, therefore she cannot be considered for it"

 

The old, 'if you don't like it, shut up or pay for your own' gambit. In social science we speak of a classic the exit/voice issue; there's more than just exiting a situation when one disagrees; you can express your voice as well.

This has never been about what I personally happen to consider rock to be. There's a very wide consensus that Whitney Houston is not rock. Similarly, there's a very wide consensus that hard rock and punk bands like Zep, Iron Maiden and the MC5 are rock among other bands.

The amount of time an incoherent view is expressed doesn't lessen its lack of coherence.

 

In many ways, contemporary pop music has way more in common with the music from the Rock & Roll era than the various rock formats of today. Even most of the Beatles catalog would fit in more on top 40 than anything that calls itself rock these days.

 

It's because they had much more commercial success than Kraftwerk. Same principle that got Metallica inducted years ago while Judas Priest continues to wait.

 

Dude, I’m not the one who was arguing for a huge chunk of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame to be expelled and form their own halls. That was you.

 

Whitney Houston was described as a rock artist before this campaign? I'm making an extraordinarily obvious claim. I can reference rock histories and encyclopedias from all over the world and even Whitney's own wikipedia page where she is never described as a rock artist remotely.

You don't appear to know what reductio ad absurdum means from your inappropriate usage of the term. Words have meanings and centers of gravity and 'rock' is no different. Is anyone making the argument that rock as a genre now suddenly includes what Whitney Houston did?

 

Probably more like, DM were far more commercially successful and almost as influential in their own right.

 

One thing we get a lot in these discussions is "So and so may not be a rock artist, but he/she influenced many rock artists, thus deserves induction".

I get that logic. But, using that argument, is there a good reason for Beethoven and Bach not being in the Hall?

I'm being serious - consider the commercial impact of Prog Rock in the 70's. Consider Genesis, Yes and Emerson Lake & Palmer. Consider Electric Light Orchestra. Consider the influence classical composers had on these artists.

Can someone delineate why Ludwig Van shouldn't be in the RRHOF, if influence is enough to get the job done?

 

or the worst case of all, Green Day getting in while so many punk legends of the 70s are still nowhere to be found

 

At this point, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been more about Fame than about Rock for some time. If I were a voting member, I might argue (somewhat futilely) that influence and innovation matter more, but the buying public and the current trustees clearly aren't using these as major criteria even if they reference them when convenient.

The hypocrisy occurs to me when people defend nonrock artists they like at the same time that they dismiss nonrock artists they don't like. I've been no less guilty at times, thinking it was cool to induct Laura Nyro but beyond the pale to have Madonna, simply because I respect Nyro and despise Madonna. (The "writes her own music" comparison is what I'd traditionally used, but it doesn't work either, given other examples. So really it comes down to like or dislike.) That's not good enough reasoning.

 

The committee voters probably sneered when they saw Dave Matthews Band on the top of the fan list vote. I would too

 

That Black Celebration - Violator period did them a lot of good. They were playing huge venues in the US while only having middling success in the UK. Here it seems like because they first made it as a very commercial synth pop, almost boy band, they haven't been taken as seriously as they have been in other countries. I like them a lot, right from the early stuff.

 

Because Depeche Mode has many more current fans who will tune in to watch them get inducted.

I'm really not sure it's more complicated than that.

 

I didn't suggest expelling anyone. I made the obvious statement that they weren't rock artists. The Hall is a private entity which can do as it pleases. What I find far more worthy of notice are the incoherent 'explanations' provided in the service of a transparently commercial operation.

It's truly astonishing that in a place like this forum it needs to be explained that rock, while it has many subgenres, does not include Whitney or Biggie.

Give that many subgenres of rock have been comparatively ignored it's obvious what is happening here if one takes a break from attacking 'white guys with guitars' and 'classic rock' as if they had committed ideological thought crimes.

 

I met Madonna at a Laura Nyro show.

 

It's nuts that E.L.P. (one of the most popular bands of the 70's) aren't in...this place of "fame."

 

Mott the Hoople deserves to be in way more than T-Rex. Would have been an easy choice since they have about the same level of fame on American radio. Plus Ian is still alive and deserves to be recognized.

 

Disappointing year. Plus ca change.

Doobies are worth it, at least.