All Mixed Up 04.13.09: Shame on The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Posted by Tom Santoro on 04.13.2009

2009 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions are in the books, now I dissect how artists are nominated to punch a ticket to “The Cleve”. In addition, my play list of the Top 12 Artists NOT in the HOF (But SHOULD be).



It is about time the voters of the Rock Hall are starting to get it right. After taking 11 years to recognize Black Sabbath as true rock legends, they seem to be making strides to make sure only the best get in when they deserve it. With the first ballot induction of Run DMC and seeing the light on the contributions of Metallica (inexplicably they were not in, in 2008 when they were first eligible), the HOF is now making sense when making its choices.




In 2008 for instance Madonna, John Mellancamp and Leonard Cohen were inducted, while Metallica was left out. It is odd that the nominating committee would think the contributions for inducting Johnny Cougar far outweigh those of Metallica. The only problem I have with Madonna is that she has never been a rock artist, but because there is no Dance Music Hall of Fame, she has to go somewhere. The "Material Girl" has however, made great contributions to the visual aspects of music.

Before we decide, who should be in and who should not let us look at how the process works. Here are the qualifications straight from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's website:


"Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contribution to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.
The Foundation's nominating committee, composed of rock and roll historians, selects nominees each year in the Performer category. Ballots are then sent to an international voting body of about 1,000 rock experts. Those performers who receive the highest number of votes, and more than 50 percent of the vote, are inducted. The Foundation generally inducts five to seven performers each year."

As you can see the first obstacle is the subjective view given by the so called rock experts. Each year, these experts decide which artists, whose career began 25 years ago, have "contributed to the development and perpetuation of rock an roll." What the heck does that mean? That is a very broad and subjective statement.

The meaning I take away from it, is that a inducted band or artist contributed to get more people to listen to rock and roll. They may have innovated a sound, been part of a movement or were just adored by a large sum of people. The ambiguities of this are large because it makes everyone eligible. The nomination has no special formula where statistics like album sales and tour attendance are the measuring stick. There are no standards as anyone could get in if the right argument is made, you just got to get 501 people to agree you fit within the parameters once you are nominated.

This is why there are artists like The Pretenders who are in the HOF alongside The Beatles, Elvis Presley and The Rolling Stones. The Pretenders are a good band, but is Chrissy Hynde an equal to John Lennon, I think not. What makes John Mellancamp so special? Sure he had a servicable career, but can he be considered a peer to Elvis Presley?

This is where the criteria has its obvious faults. It allows personal tastes, lobbying by labels/artists, the hope for diversity and money to get someone in who may not deserve it.

Personal tastes is a huge component to this. The experts come from different eras of music and will be apt to back bands from his or her era. This means there is a generational gap. There is obviously an entity with in these experts that believe there are more contributions given by 50s/60s doo wop groups such as The Ronettes and Little Anthony and The Imperials than bands such as Rush, Kiss and Black Flag. This is the crux of the whole problem, I think Rush and Kiss fit the criteria better than Little Anthony and the Imperials. I grew up listening to Rush and Kiss and think they are no brainers, while an expert thinks Little Anthony contributed much more.

The evidence is clear, as at least one act has come from this era and this type of music since the rock hall inception. Sure it is because these bands have long been eligible, but can we just accept mediocrity? This means that there is some lobbying going on by old record labels (I read once that the founder of the Rock Hall, Seymour Stein, used to run Sire Records in the 60s, which means he nominates bands he worked with.) One can only assume just like in sports, lobbying by management teams comes into play somehow. It may explain people like Percy Sledge who had only one hit and has long been considered one of the worst Hall of Famers.

There also seems to be a "let's get everybody in mentality." I don't have a huge problem with most doo wop groups getting in, but there has to be standards set somewhere. Every doo wop group can't be influential. Just as I would hope that when all the grunge bands become eligible, the lower end bands would not get in. Allowing The Flamingoes in would be akin to allowing Bush in, for example. Bush was good, but no where near the likes of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Alice in Chains.

The hope for diversity also is starting to cloud judgement. Just because a rap band is eligible doesn't mean they need to be in. I have no problem with the current inductees of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five and Run DMC, but I don't think another rap act needs to go in until Public Enemy and N.W.A. are eligible. That means no L.L. Cool J. or Kurtis Blow.

The final problem is the almighty dollar. Every year the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has an indution ceremony that benefits the upkeep of the museum. It is there biggest fund raiser, so tickets must be pushed. Let's face it, people did not go to Cleveland this year to see Little Anthony and the Imperials. They came to see Metallica and Run DMC. So each year it must be considered who will get "top billing." Look at the last few years it is big named artists like Madonna, U2 and REM and Van Halen surrounded by somewhat smaller acts that serve to diversify the bill. This is a very important factor in the nominating process.

Overall, this is a monumental waste of time fretting about who gets a plaque in a museum, but as a music junkie, I take it more serious than most. I have been to the Hall twice and could have spent days there. I was moved when I saw scraps of paper used by John Lennon to write "Imagine". I saw the fabled inflated pig used in Pink Floyd shows. To me it is not just another Hard Rock Café filled with memorabilia, it is history. The history and the exhibits are why I love music and appreciate everything these artists have given me through out my life.

Here are my Top 12 Artists Who Should Be in the Rock Hall of Fame and Why:

All of these bands are or will be eligible in 2010:

1. KISS

REASON: Okay. They have a lot of mediocre songs, but they are unparrelled in the giving you a performance (or selling you toilet paper with their image on it.) Their image was rock and roll, they gave you spectacle as well as music. The baffling thing is they have memorabilia all over the Hall, so why are they not officially in?




2. KRAFTWERK:

REASON: They made computer music accessable to the masses. This opened the door to every band playing in the 1980s. Every synth pop band started by listening to Autobahn. I would say that is pretty influential when you influence an entire decade of musicians. Without them there would be no Depech Mode or Joy Division A hundred of one hit wonders from the 80s. What hurts them is lack of album sales and notriety in the US.



3. HEART:

REASON: The Prentenders are in, so why not place the best damn female fronted rock band in? They blow away The Pretenders and Fleetwood Mac. Nancy Wilson is a great guitar player and Ann Wilson has one of the best voices.



4. CHEAP TRICK:

REASON: Their sound of power pop and metal is clear as day. Flawless. They wrote great pop songs and created the 12 string bass and five necked guitar. They have influenced hundreds of bands some for the good (Green Day/Nirvana). They have a character in Rick Neilsen and in Bun E. Carlos, but are chided for being too pop. Yet, Madonna is in.



5. JOHN COLTRANE:

REASON: Jazz is more rock than rock sometimes. Its complexities make it inaccessable, but if you have Jazz artists in, Coltrane needs to be there.



6. ALICE COOPER:

REASON: A precursor to Kiss (which may be one reason, Kiss is not in yet), they shocked the kids with their shows and their music. The shock value long overshadowed their music, which is why they will never get their due.



7. TOM WAITS:

REASON: He tells a story like Springsteen and Dylan. He has a gravelly, mumbly voice like Bruce and Bob, but he is not in. For God sakes people, the man is a genius, but we will have to wait as Leonard Cohen was just inducted.



8. IRON MAIDEN:
REASON: Um, without Maiden there is no Metallica. Nuff said.



9. RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS:

REASON: They were on the ballot this year, but not inducted. WTF??? This seems to be a no brainer, as they could get in as soon as next year, I assume they were not in this year because Metallica and Run DMC were already big enough. This is my stone cold lead pipe lock for next year. They fused funk, soul, rock, punk and rap all into one cohesive ball.


10. JANET JACKSON:

REASON: If Madonna is in, than the youngest Jackson will join her brothers leaving Rebe and Latoya as the only ones not in. She at times merged rock sounds into her music, so that alone renders her a better option than Madonna.


11. THE SMITHS:

REASON: The Hall is full of Brits and Morrissey and Co. are their biggest missing export (next to Maiden). Their influence on the emo scene is notable, but it may be too early to tell.


12. Weird Al Yankovic:

REASON: While I would not put him on the list ahead of credible musicians who make earnest original material, he deserves a not for "perpetuating rock". He created the parody genre and his talents have given us some great original material.