Why is the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland? [POLL]

Every year around this time I get annoyed. I admit it, my annoyance is born out of a gigantic chip on my shoulder. You see, I was born in Memphis Tennessee in 1976. The first 23 years of my life were spent there and I still consider myself a displaced Memphian. Memphians by their nature tend to have a chip on their shoulder for one reason or another.

A little history here (courtesy of Wikipedia):

So basically, Cleveland lobbied hardest. But ultimately, I can think of NO LEGITIMATE REASONS for the R&R HOF to be in Cleveland, Ohio. I like Ohio, I made Columbus my home in 1999. It's a fine place. But the home of R&R it is not.

Further annoying me is a story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer yesterday morning where the first sentence read: "It was only right that the birthplace of rock and roll held a celebration as lively as the one at Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the actual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony took place." Huh? So Cleveland is now the "Birthplace of Rock and Roll"?

That sentence annoys every fiber of my being, for some reason. It seems like a complete white wash of what I know to be fact. The "first" rock and roll song ever recorded, "Rocket 88" by Jackie Brenston & His Delta Cats was recorded in Memphis by Sam Phillips in 1951. Phillips of course later went on to record Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, Johnny Cash (all roundly considered essentially the Mt. Rushmore of this stuff) -- to name a few -- at Sun Records in Memphis. Memphis had Sun Studio, Stax, Hi, Ardent, Easley McCain... Carl Perkins, Booker T. & the MG's, Otis Redding, Isaac Hayes, The Staple Singers, Al Green, Big Star... and countless records cut by a myriad of artists that came to Memphis to tap in to that certain je ne sais quoi that only that city can offer.

For some reason, this year in particular this finally got to me. Memphis has always gotten short shrift. People talk about Tennessee they automatically think Nashville (and their douchey tag "Music City"). Perhaps people think of Memphis as this throwaway river city. The place where MLK was assassinated. A place of divided race relations. It is a city that doesn't promote itself very well. It takes for granted that people just know that the best music of the latter half of the 20th century originated there.

Some thirty years ago when these decisions were being made, about the R&R HOF, I can only imagine (and vaguely remember) there being a slight push and then exasperation -- CLEVELAND?!? What's done is done though, I guess. Fate is a funny thing. Memphis has been a city almost on the brink of "big time" over its history. But always finds a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Whether we are talking about missed foul shots (Memphis Tigers 2008 loss to Kansas in NCCA Title game), losing an NFL team to Nashville and JACKSONVILLE?!?... etc. And of course, losing the R&R HOF, what should essentially be its birthright, to Cleveland.

Thanks for reading,
Jason

Poll question: If we could do it all over again, which city would be your choice for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?

A couple of years ago I also wrote a rambling stream of consciousness thread about my love of my hometown:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/memphis-memories.273042/

 

Detroit or Chicago. How many songs did The Beatles, The Stones, The Who or The Kinks cover that originated in Cleveland?

 

Hello, Cleveland! HELLO, CLEVELAND!!!!!!!!!!

It does not get any more rock and roll than that. Just saying.

 

We deserved it when it was decided, and still do.

 

It's not because Cleveland lobbied the hardest. It's because Cleveland agreed to cough up $65 million of public money to cover the $90+ million that it cost to build the R&R Hall of Fame.

 

Look at all the great bands from Ohio. It is unreal.

 

There's that too.

 

IMO, the greatest American bands came out of Los Angeles. Thus, the R&R Hall of Fame probably should have been located there. If not Los Angeles, then San Francisco.

With that said, if it's going to be located in the midwest.....then it should have been DETROIT. Cleveland wishes it had the rock scene that Detroit had in the late 1960's (Grande Ballroom, etc.)

 

Yes and a number of them went to Memphis to record some of their records. Three immediately come to mind: Guided by Voices "Under the Bushes Under the Stars" and Kim Deal (The Amps) "Pacer", The Afghan Whigs "Gentlemen" and "Black Love".

All of these albums were recorded in Memphis.

 

Because Cleveland Rocks, of course!

 

Sorry to say it, but I would have put it in LA or New York, as these cities attract the most visitors in general and are where you find most entertainment/culture-related tourist destinations.

 

So are you saying the R&RHOF should be in England? Why did you not list Seattle, Philly, Boston, etc. in your list? Or maybe it's about what state or city has the most passionate R&R fans.

 

Cleveland. Memphis already has Graceland.

 

I'm fine with Cleveland having it. All of the other cities on the poll list are either tourist destinations and/or have significant music museums worth visiting.

 

Cleveland deserves it.

 

Why?

 

Always puzzled why they put the museum in the Mistake By the Lake.

But honestly, the RRHOF is a sham and a joke anyway...why does anyone care?

 

There would be no "rock & roll" without Alan Freed........and the city coughed up themost $$$$$.

 

Memphis. Home of Rock N' Roll.

Are you too good for your home?!!?!?!?!

 

The first reason is kinda bollocks, I'm sorry. The second reason I have to tip my cap to.

 

Have you ever been there ? It's economically depressed and they have the Browns. A city can only take so much.