The Enduring Failure of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
Surprise! Surprise! According to this news article, the Sex Pistols, who are to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next month, will not be attending the ceremony. The article includes this excerpt of their handwritten explanation to the committee:
"Next to the SEX PISTOLS rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain," the statement read. "Your museum. Urine in wine. Were (sic) not coming. Were (sic) not your monkey and so what?"
Of course, the RRHOF has this take on the statement:
Susan Evans, executive director of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, said of the band's announcement, "They're being the outrageous punksters that they are, and that's rock 'n' roll."
Whatever. Whether the Pistols show up (whoever's still alive from its original incarnation, that is) is immaterial to the larger problem facing the RRHOF -- that's it's totally irrelevant and, I think, in the next 10 years or so, will be seen as the pointless exercise of sycophantic back-slapping that it is.
The basic reason for the HOF's failure stems from the fact that there's no objective way to measure an artist's greatness the way you can with other Halls of Fame. The difference between music (or any art form) and sports is that in sports, you can quantify the ability of a player in a way you can't with an artist. Because an athlete is performing in a field where everyone accepts the established rules of the game, it's easy to tell when someone's excelling at his field. Nobody's going to debate the greatness of a player with a .320 career batting average or 600 home runs -- we know they're great because so few players accomplish it. And there aren't different genres of baseball -- everyone's playing the same game.
How do you quantify the excellence of an artist? Now that the no-brainers of rock and roll have been inducted (The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, etc.), how do we gauge the importance of future artists? Record sales? If that's the case, we better start preparing Britney Spears's bust. Influence? The band Television probably influenced a ton of aspiring guitarists, but they've been left behind while their CBGB counterparts have gotten in.
Also, their criteria for induction seems shaky. Bob Seger was inducted into the HOF in 2004. Now, I have nothing against Bob Seger -- like you, I've been singing along with his radio hits since I was born. But is he really a rock immortal? Outside of Kid Rock, who only cites Seger because they're both from Michigan, does any band ever cite Seger as a major influence? What has his contribution been to rock and roll's legacy?
The best answer I can come up with is: longevity. Seger's induction seems to be the RRHOF's way of rewarding Seger for having poured his blood, sweat, and tears into his straight-ahead, non-influential, radio-friendly music for decades.
Which is fine. But if that's the case, how can the HOF begin to overlook a score of other artists, who have been around just as long as Seger, and in some cases, been far more popular? A partial list off the top of my head would include: John Mellencamp (who was passed over this year), REO Speedwagon, Styx, Peter Frampton, Journey, and Hall & Oates.
I'm not saying that Styx or Journey should be inducted into any Hall of Fame. But it just proves that there's no good way to separate immortal bands from merely popular ones. It just reveals the RRHOF for what it is: A bunch of upper-level music executives (led by Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner) hand-picking their favorite bands.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I honestly can't figure out why Hall & Oates haven't been inducted. By any measure imaginable, they've been one of the great acts of the last 35 years. Commercially, they're the most successful duo of all time. They had #1 hits on both mainstream and R&B radio. Daryl Hall is one of the most adored blue-eyed soul singers of his generation. If you think their pop confections of the '80s are too lightweight (kinda like how Aerosmith's were, right?), how about that trilogy of truly classic songs they released in the '70s -- "Sara Smile," "Rich Girl," and most notably, "She's Gone"? And yeah, they made a bunch of cheesy videos, but so did Billy Joel. And here they are, some 30 years after they started, still touring and releasing new material. So why hath the HOF forsaken them?
Maybe they'll get their due in time, because as you begin to think about it, you realize that there's been a decreasing amount of truly era-defining, influential bands during the last 20 years. Sure, there'll be the first-ballot inductees whenever they're eligible: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Madonna, Radiohead, even (gulp) the Dave Matthews Band, but they're coming fewer and farther between. Then again, didn't Hootie and the Blowfish sell a shitload of albums and define the sound of mid-90s radio?
I predict that within the next decade, you're going to see a significant watering-down of who's being inducted. Some people would argue that this will just reflect the ever-evolving nature of rock music, but let's be honest, is anyone going to have a legitimate debate as to whether Bon Jovi is as important as Van Morrison? (In fact, I'd like someone to adequately explain to me why Bon Jovi is held in such high esteem as they are -- for the life of me, I can't tell what separates them from Whitesnake or Night Ranger).
But you know what? In the end, the RRHOF is a reflection of the changing nature of rock and roll -- the HOF perfectly represents the total commercialization of the music business. What used to be a form of music that went against the establishment now relies on the establishment to validate its success. What a joke.
"Next to the SEX PISTOLS rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain," the statement read. "Your museum. Urine in wine. Were (sic) not coming. Were (sic) not your monkey and so what?"
Of course, the RRHOF has this take on the statement:
Susan Evans, executive director of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, said of the band's announcement, "They're being the outrageous punksters that they are, and that's rock 'n' roll."
Whatever. Whether the Pistols show up (whoever's still alive from its original incarnation, that is) is immaterial to the larger problem facing the RRHOF -- that's it's totally irrelevant and, I think, in the next 10 years or so, will be seen as the pointless exercise of sycophantic back-slapping that it is.
The basic reason for the HOF's failure stems from the fact that there's no objective way to measure an artist's greatness the way you can with other Halls of Fame. The difference between music (or any art form) and sports is that in sports, you can quantify the ability of a player in a way you can't with an artist. Because an athlete is performing in a field where everyone accepts the established rules of the game, it's easy to tell when someone's excelling at his field. Nobody's going to debate the greatness of a player with a .320 career batting average or 600 home runs -- we know they're great because so few players accomplish it. And there aren't different genres of baseball -- everyone's playing the same game.
How do you quantify the excellence of an artist? Now that the no-brainers of rock and roll have been inducted (The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, etc.), how do we gauge the importance of future artists? Record sales? If that's the case, we better start preparing Britney Spears's bust. Influence? The band Television probably influenced a ton of aspiring guitarists, but they've been left behind while their CBGB counterparts have gotten in.
Also, their criteria for induction seems shaky. Bob Seger was inducted into the HOF in 2004. Now, I have nothing against Bob Seger -- like you, I've been singing along with his radio hits since I was born. But is he really a rock immortal? Outside of Kid Rock, who only cites Seger because they're both from Michigan, does any band ever cite Seger as a major influence? What has his contribution been to rock and roll's legacy?
The best answer I can come up with is: longevity. Seger's induction seems to be the RRHOF's way of rewarding Seger for having poured his blood, sweat, and tears into his straight-ahead, non-influential, radio-friendly music for decades.
Which is fine. But if that's the case, how can the HOF begin to overlook a score of other artists, who have been around just as long as Seger, and in some cases, been far more popular? A partial list off the top of my head would include: John Mellencamp (who was passed over this year), REO Speedwagon, Styx, Peter Frampton, Journey, and Hall & Oates.
I'm not saying that Styx or Journey should be inducted into any Hall of Fame. But it just proves that there's no good way to separate immortal bands from merely popular ones. It just reveals the RRHOF for what it is: A bunch of upper-level music executives (led by Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner) hand-picking their favorite bands.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I honestly can't figure out why Hall & Oates haven't been inducted. By any measure imaginable, they've been one of the great acts of the last 35 years. Commercially, they're the most successful duo of all time. They had #1 hits on both mainstream and R&B radio. Daryl Hall is one of the most adored blue-eyed soul singers of his generation. If you think their pop confections of the '80s are too lightweight (kinda like how Aerosmith's were, right?), how about that trilogy of truly classic songs they released in the '70s -- "Sara Smile," "Rich Girl," and most notably, "She's Gone"? And yeah, they made a bunch of cheesy videos, but so did Billy Joel. And here they are, some 30 years after they started, still touring and releasing new material. So why hath the HOF forsaken them?
Maybe they'll get their due in time, because as you begin to think about it, you realize that there's been a decreasing amount of truly era-defining, influential bands during the last 20 years. Sure, there'll be the first-ballot inductees whenever they're eligible: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Madonna, Radiohead, even (gulp) the Dave Matthews Band, but they're coming fewer and farther between. Then again, didn't Hootie and the Blowfish sell a shitload of albums and define the sound of mid-90s radio?
I predict that within the next decade, you're going to see a significant watering-down of who's being inducted. Some people would argue that this will just reflect the ever-evolving nature of rock music, but let's be honest, is anyone going to have a legitimate debate as to whether Bon Jovi is as important as Van Morrison? (In fact, I'd like someone to adequately explain to me why Bon Jovi is held in such high esteem as they are -- for the life of me, I can't tell what separates them from Whitesnake or Night Ranger).
But you know what? In the end, the RRHOF is a reflection of the changing nature of rock and roll -- the HOF perfectly represents the total commercialization of the music business. What used to be a form of music that went against the establishment now relies on the establishment to validate its success. What a joke.
posted by Mike at 7:50 PM
0 comments
