I was just browsing through the "Hall of Fame" thread.
First off, let me say that I pretty much agree with all the arguments against hero-worship, deification, etc. It's rock & roll, and the real "hall of fame" is your local bar, where some snot-nosed kids are (it is to be hoped) making a racket.
That said, the Hall of Fame is what it is. The museum itself (in Cleveland) is fascinating, and too big to see in a single day. Definitely worth a look, though, if you're in the area.
In terms of the actual "Honor Roll" though... again, whatever you think of it, it's out there. And someday, when rock & roll has vanished from the radio completely and some kid is wondering what the big deal was (this might be coming up any day now, actually), one of the resources he or she will discover is the official list of Hall of Fame members.
And what really bothers me is that in recent years, it seems like the selection process has focused almost entirely on commercial success and not on any kind of historical importance.
Go over to the official website and check out the inductees: [
www.rockhall.com]. The early years, when artists from the fifties and early sixties were being added, really do represent the most influential musicians of that period.
It probably doesn't hurt that most of these artists were also successfully commercially. The music biz was quite a different animal back then, and few artists would ever have a chance to influence much of anyone unless they had a radio hit.
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of obscure regional artists (e.g.) who are left off the list, but my point is that for someone curious about the history of rock music, the inductees from the first five or six years of the Hall of Fame would really provide a comprehensive overview of the music of that time.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the inductees from the last several years. Jackson Browne? Bob Seger? Aesthetic judgements aside, what significant influence did either of them have? What new ground did either of them break?
Of course the Sex Pistols haven't been inducted. Neither, it should be pointed out, have Black Sabbath or Judas Priest -- two of the most insanely influential bands of the 70s -- or the Stooges, or the MC5, or a lot of less well-known acts.
It's true that a small group of influential punk/new wave bands have been inducted (the Clash, Elvis, the Ramones, et al). But as the window of eligibility is moves further and further into the 80s, we're going to see more second-generation (and often second-rate) bands and, I fear, fewer of the truly influential bands.
Are we someday going to see the Cure inducted, but never Joy Division? Perhaps Duran Duran, but never Ultravox? How about Wire? Or Gang of Four? These bands helped lay the foundation for much of what is now known as "Eighties Rock" in the late 70s. Will they ever see any recognition from the rock "establishment"?
Should they even care? Sure that's a valid question and the idea of a rock "establishment" is STILL (as it was at the beginning of this screed) a silly idea, but it's nonetheless a reality.
I guess my ultimate point is that in the early days, the Hall of Fame really did a decent job of tracing the birth of rock & roll -- they didn't just start with the Stones or Led Zeppelin. But they're failing miserably in tracing the GROWTH of rock in the 70s.
Is it worth expending any energy to try to rectify this situation? Should we be trying to exert influence on the Hall of Fame? Should we start an alternate Hall of Fame? Or should we just post long messages on the internet bitching about it?
