The Mosh Pit 10.05.07: The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame - Pt1

Posted by Dan Haggerty on 10.05.2007

This year’s list of possible inductees for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is in, and the Mosh Pit has had it with this institution. This week we look at who got the nod, and explain why Cleveland’s favorite museum fails to deliver!



Once again we have our annual nominations for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and once again I'm just mad as hell. Why? Because the idiots at who run this thing seem to not know what in the hell they are doing. Yes. I'm hot, and this year Mitch and Ashish have given me a soap box to stand on.

That reminds me: Thanks Mitch! Thanks Ashish! You guys rock for hiring me. Hopefully you feel the same…

Tonight's Show

OK – Down to business. First crime from this institution – Two of the nominees should have been in years ago. Second crime – Two nominees are not even Rock and Roll, but a separate genre. Third, and this one really chaff's me – One was actually screwed over during last years nomination process due to "Business" considerations. The rest is just middle of the road stuff that, while not bad, is also not the caliber of the bands that should be in. It's come to be my highly biased and non-compromising opinion that the Hall of Fame fails at life. They started out with the right idea, and did a good job at first; of course, it's hard to not botch the first 20 years of Rock and Roll. No one will argue over Chuck Berry, Elvis, or the Beatles.

But now it's getting embarrassing to consider what "Standards" these supposed experts are using. The Ventures are getting the nod now? The band that revolutionized the guitar sound for Rock and Roll is getting in now? After U2? Yes they were big, but they didn't even have any musical skills when they started out. Come on. I don't have a beef with U2, just that they got in before someone like The Ventures. Is this a Hall of Fame or some popularity/marketing contest? You'll agree with that statement when we read about the Dave Clark 5 below.

Now while I will, for once, agree that record sales are important for this discussion. After all, while sales =/= success, sales does = impact. And influence can be measured that way. But there is also more to the story. So before all of you U2 fans bomb me with email on how they should be in, just remember that my issue is not that they shouldn't be in, but that they should not be in yet. There are other, more qualified performers who should be in first.

And therein lies my biggest issue with the Hall of Fame. It's not who they have nominated, buy those that they have skipped to get less qualified performers in first. Well, enough of that. You get the idea. Lets look at this years nominees:


DONNA SUMMER

I need to get the good out of the way first, as I have absolutely no problem with this one. It's a slam-dunk no-brainer and shame on the Hall of Fame for waiting until now to do it. What did she do? She has had 80 singles, 16 alone which have hit number one. During her prime recording years of 1977 to 1984, she had a top 40 hit every year and was also the first female artist to have three number one hits in one year. She has accumulated five Grammy Awards, including the fact she was the first African American winner for rock. Oh, the "Queen of Dance" is not just a title as she is in the Dance Hall of Fame twice. You want influence; "I Feel Love" alone has been covered 25 times by various artists plus was the first disco/dance song to be entirely backed by synthesizers. David Bowie called the song the most ground breaking recording of it's time, and predicted it would set the standards for club music for over a decade. He was wrong, as it was more like two decades.

My only comment on Summers is that The Queen of Dance should have been inducted before now. How The Talking Heads got in before her is insane.


THE VENTURES

Wow. I had thought these guys would have been inducted already. I was shocked when I read this in the original news story. Why? They have over 110 million albums sold, 37 hit albums (five in one year!), and credited with inventing "Surf Rock" would be close enough (Incidentally, they were credited with helping create the surf rock sound but were not a surf rock band themselves). But their importance in history becomes insured when you look at the list of people they influenced: George Harrison, Joe Walsh, Jeff Baxter, Joe Perry, and Gene Simmons. Not bad for an instrumental band.

They did all of this by innovated the way guitars could be used in a song, especially the interplay between two separate players. Not only did this change the entire dynamic of what the electric guitar was capable of, but all of us metal fans wouldn't have the twin leads without them. I can't believe the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has waited until now to get them on the ballet. That speaks volumes to me about this organizations credibility, especially in light of the fact Summers above is also just now getting put on the ballet.


THE DAVE CLARK FIVE

A band in the original British invasion (just behind the Beatles actually), The Dave Clark Five had numerous hits, including quite a few us Americans haven't heard simple because DC5 (Their moniker) was bigger across the pond. In a short 7 years, they put out 27 singles, appeared 18 times on the Ed Sullivan Show, released there own movie, and speaking of their similarities to the Beatles, actually pushed them off number one several times. Amazingly, the band ultimately failed to transition to the psychedelic period at the end of the 60's and just died out after an amazing 7 year run.

I have no issue with this band going in on its own, as they ere a huge part of the "British Invasion" that changed Rock and Roll. But more importantly, it's mandatory after the complete and utter bullshit the Hall of Fame pulled last year. For those who missed it, DC5 came in fifth last year in the voting, but self-appointed chairman Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone magazine fame changed it to get Grandmaster Flash (the sixth candidate) simply because he thought they "Could not go another year without a rap act". Quotes are from the news article, not mine. Yes, you read that right. One man overruled the entire voting process based of some genre affirmative action principle. Screw the experts and all the bands that put their life into rock and roll, HE will decide who gets in based on what's good for business. Thanks for turning the music I love into a business/social engineering project you idiots. DC5 are in on principle as far as I'm concerned.


JOHN MELLENCAMP

Mellencamp was big in the 80's, no doubt about that. He had crossover with country and folk, and was the dictionary picture perfect definition of "Blue-Collar Rock". He has had over 50 single releases to date, but notable is 85's Scarecrow with seven hit singles. An organizer involved in Farm Aid back in the day, his name was considered my many to be the voice of Middle America.

Honestly, I haven't cared much about him since he carried the "Cougar" moniker, and even that was marginal to put it nicely. But his influence in the greater scheme of rock and roll is undeniable, so I'll call this one good to go even if I would be lucky to put together a five song EP of his music. My only real issue and I'll be saying this a lot, is that while I can see him getting in the Hall of Fame, it would not be this year as there are others who should be getting the nod first. And yes, I plan on answering the question "Who?" eventually.


LEONARD COHEN

I can take or leave this pick. Leonard Cohen is a Canadian poet and musician that is not well known in the States, but has achieved more notable success in Canada and Europe. He is best known for his influence musically and lyrically. His poetic side and bouts of depression gave Cohen a hand in writing music with depth not seen before the 70's. World wide, his music has been covered a lot (the lists I found were so damn big I decided not to count them).

While I believe there are others that should be getting in, based on career and influence, I also have to admit I'm not a huge folk-rock fan and only marginally familiar with him so I'm going to call this a draw. Either way, there are others who should be first.


CHIC

Disco divas of the late 70's, Chic dominated for several years. Interestingly, their influence is greater than might be seen as they also helped produce a number of albums, including sister Sledge, along with notable one off collaborations with Dianna Ross, Debbi Harry, and even a Carly Simon single. This is the fourth year they have been nominated. Nothing against the disco queens, or their savvy business skills (they were one of the first female groups to organize their business interests themselves to keep the profits and music rights with them), but I think it's just too soon for them. I have nothing against the ladies at all, in fact I have a healthy respect for the way they took the industry head on and give them great kudos for paving the way for future performers to control their music and careers. Can I see them being inducted - Yes, someday. But there are bands with bigger musical/industry impact with longer careers that should be in first.


THE BEASTIE BOYS

This one makes me want to scream, and not in the cool way because Dave Mustaine is standing 40 feet away ripping through "Holy Wars". This one fails on a number of levels, but before I get to that I'll actually say the good. First, Licensed Ti Ill was a landmark album for rap in the music industry. It contained early elements of crossover influences for hip-hop with rock. Also, it took the rap and hip-hop scene and made it mainstream. I can personally attest that I never heard a rap song at a party until this album came out (And that's all I fucking heard after that – I swear to God I'll go postal if I ever hear "Funky Chicken" again). The Beastie Boys then turned around with three more successful albums after that. So if you want to talk about rap, then the Beastie Boys are an important part of music history as an influence and as a crossover band.

But…

I have a big issue with rap being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in the first place. Maybe crossover bands that led to changes in rock subgenres, but hip-hop is a separate genre of music in itself, just like country, and should have its own Hall of Fame. The scene dominated music and video by the end of the 80's, through the 90's, and is holding it's own as it is now saturated into pop culture. As such it deserves its own Hall of Fame. Why it's getting pegged with Rock and Roll is beyond me. About the only realistic answer I can come up with is that it is relatively young as a genre. Whatever the reason, it's crazy as Polka has its own Hall of Fame but one of the most popular modern day music scene's can't have one?

Now if you want to talk about The Beastie Boys as a crossover band, then that is cool. They were, after all, an actual punk band until 84 then became the first rock/rap album. But it didn't influence future rock and roll besides some subgenres like nu-metal; most of their influence goes into mainstreaming hip-hop and that returns us to my argument above.

And finally, if the music elite who runs these things decides to slight the rap artists their own Hall of Fame and just peg them in with Rock and Roll, then they should at the very least wait till 2011 when the album that did all of this becomes eligible. The music the band was performing in 83 didn't do this. They were still a punk band. Picky? Yes. But there are a lot of bands out there that have been eligible, and should be getting in, so the standards need to be picky.

And for the record, this has nothing to do with the fact I continuously bitch about Rolling Stone Magazine ranking them #77 on their list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, higher than Black Sabbath. In other words, they think the band that influenced Limp Bizkit or Korn is more important than the band that created the whole damn genre in the first place! That's so idiotic I refuse to take that rag seriously. But for our purposes I don't hold that against the Beastie Boys – It's not their fault that the contributors at Rolling Stone are a bunch of assclowns that couldn't think their way out of a conversation with Britney Spears.

OK… Moving on.



AFRIKA BAMBAATAA

I have to admit, this was the one pick I didn't know much about. Some quick researched (God I love the internet) told me that this is one pretty cool guy. Afrika Bambaata was a DJ and album producer who was very influential in getting hip-hop off the ground at the end of the 70's and the 80's. Further, he was heavily involved in working with street gangs and was instrumental in reducing gang violence. His life is a great read if you ever want to look it up and read about it.

That being said, this is the same as the Beastie Boys. There should be a Hip Hop Hall of Fame for him to be inducted into. Further, his album list reads as a bunch of single and collaborations, so I'm not sure if he qualifies as a performer or should go in under the "Influencing Person" category for his DJ and production involvement. Either way, if there was an HHHoF, he should be in the first round of inductees. As it is, if they are going to insist on keeping rap married to rock and roll, then I can see him getting in as an individual who had an important influence, which is undeniable, but not as a performer.


MADONNA

Yes, I know, She has over 130 million in world wide record sales and six Grammy Awards (and one Golden Glob for those keeping score), but I have some issues with this one. First of all, she has done nothing musically that has inspired today's artists. Sorry, it's true. No, I'm not sorry. Deal with it. The musical influences of today's top 40 queens comes from many and the same sources overall as Madonna's did. Where her influence is seen is in marketing, hype, promotion, image, and everything that has to do with the industry outside of the music. If anyone has scratched their head at the actions of Britney Spears, well don't – She is just a (very) poor man's version of Madonna. She is getting by on hype and controversy to keep her in the charts, as can be seen by her lackadaisical attitude to performing, recording and as seen this week's story on how she actively courts the press. Madonna did it first, and to her credit did it better than anyone else. Today's labels and little diva wannabes try to imitate her, but can't. Madonna might be a prime example of controversy over substance, but she is a shrewd businesswoman that created the playbook they work out of.

All of that being said, I will still giver the benefit of the doubt and say she should be in under the terms of the whole "Made Rock and Roll a force in our culture" tag, at least eventually. She did, for better or worse influence the industry and in the process made a lot of music that people were happy enough to buy, so I'll give her props and dues. It's just that I firmly believe that there are other people who should go before her who actually did more to influence music. Heck, there is some that did the whole controversy and hype thing first also. Why someone is chomping at the bit to get her in the first year she is available is beyond me, but I'm sure it has to do with marketing and hype over substance so I'm calling bullshit on the choice.



Intermission

So there you have the break down. The next obvious question would be "Well smart guy, who would you put in the Hall of Fame?"

I'm glad you asked. I've got a list… Oh yea I got a list. But it's going to have to wait until next time. See you next Friday for the first annual Official Mosh Pit List of inductees who should be going in!

In the interim, I'd love to hear your thoughts? You think I'm crazy? Well that's a given. But what do you think of the Hall of Fame and who would you nominate? And just don't give me a name, put some soul into it and tell us why?


The Set List
The albums on my playlist this week; some new, some old, always good :



Twisted Sister - You Can't Stop Rock ‘n' Roll

This classic is a piece of old school goodness. As this is pre Stay Hungry there is no Aqua Net in sight. This is straight up early 80's metal – Raw, tough, and filled with beer bottle hooks courtesy of the night clubs they got their start in. It can be easy to not take TS seriously considering some of the hair to cheese factor went off the scale in the late 80's, but their early material is good for the metal soul.

Arch Enemy - Rise of the Tyrant

This is one melodic death metal band that just clicks for me – Be it the Angela era or their first three albums with Axelsson. This one is hot of the presses, and at first spin appears to carry home a little bit of the three previous albums. It's as if the band cherry picked their favorite aspects of each then went for it. Either way, it's more melodic like Doomsday Machine but carries the Wage of Sin work ethic so its enjoying continuous rotation this week. Maybe I'm just a sucker of little gals who can scream the brains out from between my ears.

Metallica - Ride the Lightning

Paint me crazy, and I'm sure I'll get a lot of mail for this, but Ride the Lightning is in my opinion the best record the band ever did. For my money, Master of Puppets was just version 2.0 of this little gem. Not that Masters isn't bad, it's a classic. Only Lightning created the blue print that the band followed over the next several albums. That sounds like a good idea for a column some day…

Forgotten Classics
Time to pull a classic from the collection and give it the attention it deserves!


Rush – 2112





For any Rush fan this is really a no-brainer, and might seem odd for a subsection of a column dedicated to pointing out forgotten classics, but this weeks discussion on bands overlooked by the Hall of Fame has prompted this. I think I just gave away one of the bands next week. Anyway, 2112 can be pinpointed as the father of progressive metal and laid the foundation for future concept albums.

2112 opens with the title track, and this monster goes coast to coast on side one to create the classic science-fiction/philosophic anthem that put the band on the map. It's the story of a collective future where individualism is not allowed, all controlled by authorities through pre-approved art. Lifeson is on fire, slaying with his axe work through anthems like "Overture" and "The Temples of Syrinx", while Lee is shrieking the clarion call of musical freedom. His bass work is stellar also, as he proves the instrument can be more than perpetuating a catchy rhythm. And what can be said of Peart but that man does more with his drum kit on accident than many due intentionally. Yes, I'm being over the top because this song deserves it.

Side two returns to earthly realms with the classic edge of "A Passage to Bangkok" (and man due those lyrics charm after all these years), and ends with the pounding "Something for Nothing" - A sure fire anthem that again demonstrates Peart's lyrical ability to harmonize philosophy with muse. Alex wings his axe is circles that burns his parts into the vinyl itself. A few softer tracks in the middle keep side two relaxed and earthly.

What can I say? This is a classic. Go get it.

Now.


Tales from the Pit
Reader Feedback, what's on your playlist, and the great gigs you've seen.

This week Earl check in with some thought from by Sabbath column:

Great article Dan! I consider myself a massive Sabbath fan, and find it refreshing to read intelligent articles on my favorite band. You pointed out some real obstacles to the reunion, but wouldn't it be nice to have one more album from them?? I guess there's also an unspoken fear (understandably) of a less than stellar followup to a classic body of work...go for it Sabbath!!

You're on the money. It would be great to have one more album from guys. You are on about the fear of putting out something poor. I've read quotes from Butler and Ward saying that wouldn't just rush into anything and slap the Sabbath name on it. That's one of the reasons the attempt fell through several years back during the Ozzfest reunion dates. We can always hope that the spark hits and ignites the motivation!


Marty checks in with his thoughts as well:

Well written article on Sabbath reuniting and good, valid points. I'm mostly disinterested having seen them back in the day (70s) and on the Ozzfest reunion back in 99. Biggest reason? As you said, Ozzy will cling to the same old set list as always. I read an interview years ago with Zakk stating they had tried and tried to get him to do something, anything different (Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, etc) and they would even tune down as much as needed to accomodate his vocals (or lack thereof)---no dice. The man is either really insecure or just doesn't get that some of the deeper catalog material would be a breath of fresh air. Aside from that, I really don't want to put a single penny more into Sharon's retirement fund. I would break down and buy a new album if they did one, but if they do another live DVD and butcher it up with commentary breaking in on the performances as they did with Last Supper, I might be forced to heave a ham in their direction. What the hell was the point in that??? Yes, this is your reunion tour and rather than give the fans a complete show, you feel the need to break in to every song with thoughts and comments, completely disrupting the flow of the show. Nice job, guys. And don't even get me started on the whole "removing the original bass and drums from Ozzy's first two solo albums".

I'll just let this stand on its own merits. All great points made by Marty here.


Final Thoughts

It's been real. Now you be real and go listen to your favorite bands. And while you're at it, turn it up to 11. If someone complains, raise the fist of rock and tell then I said ‘Hi'.