What makes a RnR Hall of Famer?

The induction ceremonies for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame were this week and some of us have been having a discussion about the institution itself. We thought that this would be a great topic to revive this moribund blog.

I have been put in the position of defending the institution against pbryon and jmons. First, I think that the idea of a rock and roll hall of fame can be workable and that it’s a fun way of having a centralized forum to discuss “rock” and debate the merits of various historical performers and groups. Note that I put "rock" in quotation marks; I did that because the very nature of rock itself is up for debate. Jmons is skeptical of what argument could be made to link Bill Haley and The Talking Heads as practitioners of the same sound. That is a very good point and relevant to the controversial decision to include hip hop groups in the hall. The only definition I can discern, based on past selection criteria, is that voters have deliberately adopted a very broad definition of rock as basically “post-WW2 popular music(minus country, jazz, and show tunes).”

Subtracting those entities does make some sense because country, jazz, and show tunes were popular before WW2. Still, as far as elected performers are concerned, the voters haven’t been entirely consistent in this matter. Johnny Cash recorded rockabilly tunes early in his career, but those don’t seem to be quite enough to merit induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame by themselves. Alternatively, Cash could have been elected in the “early influence” category, but even that doesn’t make sense given that his career was contemporaneous with rock and roll. Thus, either Cash’s inclusion is a mistake or people like Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, and Loretta Lynn are deserving inductees as well.

Pbryon’s complaint is largely about the fuzzy criteria that have been used to determine inductees. He is particularly troubled by the fact that a critical darling like Patti Smith made it despite selling relatively few albums. The very idea of giving awards based on artistic merit is indeed absurd. The same argument is made all the time about the Oscars and the Grammies (the less said about the Grammies, the better.) Still, the procedure described below seems to be pretty good:

A nominating committee composed of music historians selects names for the Performers category, which are then voted on by roughly 1000 experts, including academics, journalists, producers, and others with music industry experience. Performers receiving the highest number of votes greater than 50% of the votes received are selected for induction; each year, about five to seven nominees make the cut.

This committee tries (from the web site):

to recognize the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame.

This is quite vague. A broad sketch can be made from the nominees so far about the criteria used. Bear in mind that these categories overlap. For reference, see a list of inductees here

First, influence seems to bode very large in the minds of the voters. This probably explains the inductions of Smith and the Sex Pistols (who rejected their induction saying “Next to the SEX-PISTOLS, rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain.” [sic]).

Second, representativeness of a particular genre plays a role. The Eagles were inducted because they represent the popular culmination of country-rock in the 70s; James Taylor goes in because he represents 70s singer-songwriters. Certain genres have not yet received recognition (disco, prog rock, etc.) I expect that this will be rectified when performers like Donna Summer, Chic, Yes, and Genesis eventually get deservedly elected.

Third, I think that popularity occasionally seeps into the criteria. I see no other reason why Billy Joel was elected. This criteria becomes controversial; many have argued that the voters often will induct popular, yet undeserving acts merely to garner publicity for the institution. Jmons, in particular, is horrified about a potential Jimmy Buffet election.

The first two criteria that I've listed are in a sense "objective." What I mean by objective is that there could be broad, relatively non-controversial agreement about influence and genre-representativeness. (This leaves aside the argument that one could say that an entire genre, e.g. hair metal, deserves no representation, but that is for another post). The third criterion, popularity, opens up a whole can of worms. If popularity comes into play, then subjectivity has to be openly acknowledged. Why not elect popular acts like Buffett, Barry Manilow or Journey if popularity matters? What needs to be introduced to temper this is a "suckiness quotient." Barry Manilow and Journey should not be elected because their music sucked, i.e. their music lacked artistic merit. I'm going to address this further in another post to come which will be entitled "U2 Doesn't Suck (But I Still Don't Like Them)." The gist of that post will be that one can acknowledge artistic merit without necessarily liking the art.

One thing that I definitely don't like about the Hall of Fame procedure is the way that it separates solo careers from band careers. This is the Iggy Pop problem. The Stooges probably didn't do quite enough to get in, but, if you add in Iggy's solo work, Iggy's a no-brainer. The same thing is true of Roxy Music and Brian Eno. Brian Eno should make it by himself, I would think, but you could certainly make a strong argument for Roxy Music, too.

This situation also combines some of the main problems of the institution – undeserving solo artists get in by leeching off the popularity of their bands. For example, I don’t think that any of the solo Beatles deserve entry (outside of John Lennon possibly) and I certainly don’t think that Eric Clapton’s solo career merits entry. The only solo careers that I really see as meriting independent induction are those of Sam Cooke, Neil Young, Paul Simon, Michael Jackson, and Curtis Mayfield.

I have my own opinions about other undeserved inductees, and unjustly shunned nominees, but I’ve gone on long enough. Any comments?

New Product Alert!

(New product alerts were a common theme between myself and JMons. We hope to continue them here.)

As I sit here at lunch, I have my first few sips of "Diet Pepsi Jazz Strawberries and Cream." Not gag-inducing, but not memorable either. What gets me about it is that it isn't a strawberry and cream flavored soda--that might have a chance. Its strawberry and cream flavored Diet Pepsi. Strawberries and cola simply do not go together. Try it at your own risk.

And don't get me started on the ridiculously long name and the new "Jazz" sub-brand.

Yesterday I tried "Diet Pepsi Jazz Black Cherry and Vanilla." I don't know what the turnaround time is on a soda from concept to store shelves, but I find it very peculiar that both Coke and Pepsi both have black cherry vanilla flavors currently on shelves, appearing within mere months (weeks?) of one another. And in this race, they were both beat to the punch by black cherry vanilla Dr. Pepper.

Maybe I don't understand the economics of soda flavors, but Coke and Pepsi always seem to play the game of mutual assured destruction when they introduce a new flavor. One comes first, and the other quickly follows. The only times I don't remember this happening are the introductions of Pepsi Clear and Pepsi Blue.

Couldn't either company allow the other to have at least one unique cola?

The New Hallowed Ground

Via guest blogger Didyk…

I wasn't sure how to feel about the groundbreaking ceremony for the new
Stankee stadium.

Overdone as only NY can...absolutely!

I'd luv to bash the organization for knocking down what is arguably one of the greatest parks ever (see also Wrigley and Fenway) all in the pursuit of money. And yes, just because the Stanks sell out now doesn't mean the new stadium isn't about money, rather it is about MORE money. The PR spin is that this is done for the fans, but anything done "for the fans" is really done so that "fans spend more money". The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Yet I do recognize that what benefits ownership also arises from fan satisfaction. And that there will be many benefits to the next generation of fans. Randy Levine has already proclaimed that the new stadium will be the greatest ever built. Can that be true if it is still in the South Bronx?

Of course, we all know what Randy Levine's comments are worth. But even in the face of his hyperbole, the new stadium will obviously provide amenities and comforts that the old park clearly lacked - hopefully seats for extra security personnel. As such, it is hard to take a cynical view of this situation. I'm sure that Wrigley and Fenway will be confronted with similar forces that will inevitably lead to their destruction. Ballparks must eventually be updated.

But for now, I can't help by take a little comfort in the building of a new park. No matter how nice it is, and how much propaganda is spewed, the lasting impression for me is that New York loses some of its cache with this entire affair. Fenway and Wrigley will be the beloved cathedrals of baseball. Baseball is steeped in history. And Stankee fans love to brag about how the history of baseball is intimately linked with Stankee history. Well, a symbol of that will be no more, and I couldn't be happier. No more "house that Ruth built". No more "aura and mystique". No more "hallowed ground".

Now if we could only do something about that 56 game hitting streak.

Worthless Cardboard?

Is anyone else out there from my generation sitting on a big pile of early 1980's baseball cards? News flash...they're worthless. At least I have the memories of bike rides over to the shop next to Bill the Butcher's barber shop to haggle over the price of Rickey Henderson rookie cards. And the thrill of finding a rare Don Mattingly Donruss rookie peeking out of a cello pack that I bought at Value City in Vineland, NJ.

The Joys of Carpentry

Though I wear a lot of hats at work, I guess you can call me a research scientist. But the higher you get in the research system, the more you oversee people, set direction, and deal with burocracy, and the less you actually get to do research with your own hands. But while I can't complain about the pay, and I very much like what I do, there are a lot of days when I wish I could do some of that research myself again. Going out and collecting specimens in the field on a nice day (or even a bad day) is always fun. And planning and running experiments is also fulfilling, particularly when you get good results. In short, I guess its satisfying to create and compete something with your own hands. Well, to me at least.

And its doubly satisfying when that thing is something you can see, feel, or touch, and something that will last for a while. Which is why I'm having fun rebuilding my deck. Now I'm no carpenter, but I'm relatively handy, and I guess I'm competent with power tools. Like any project this size, there will be bumps in the road--last night I had a bear of time getting joist hangers where I wanted them, and I have a bunch of bloody knuckles--but the end will be worth it. I think that there's something therapeutic to things like carpentry.

I think it also harkens back to simpler times, without the rat race that many of are sucked into. There are plenty of times I'll drive through a small town up here in Vermont or New York, and I'll think that it would be nice to work in town and run something like the diner, or hardware store, or stationer. I know its unrealistic, and that shops like that are having a hard time making ends meet, but to me sometimes it looks like a joy.

Maybe the images of 50's-style Americana have just been burned into my head too many times, and I've bought in. But I don't see much of that Americana today--the towns where everyone knows you and would go out of their way to help you. Perhaps I'm finding some of that in making my deck, and, for now at least, its been gratifying.

The Hall of Fame and the 90s

This article

does a good job highlighting some of the problems that Hall of Fame voters are going to have in the future. In short, how do you compare the numbers of players who used steroids with the numbers of players who did not? This is especially complicated given that no one knows who used and who didn't. There is a great deal of hope that the Mitchell Report will straighten things out some, but I'm less confidant of that than the writers quoted in the article.

Let's assume that one argues that the top twenty all-time players at each position should be in the running for the Hall of Fame. Players in a sense compete with other players from their own era and with players from other eras to get in. What concerns me is that there will be a player who posts slightly better numbers with the help of steroids than a player who does not use steroids and that the secret steroid user will get in over the more deserving non-steroid user. (For an example, think of Mark McGwire v. Frank Thomas. Or, better and more slanderously, a certain Astro 1B v. Thomas.)

Anyway, I made an inclusive list of players from the 90s who are possible contenders for the Hall (some will have to post a few more good years to make it, but it's fun to guess). Let me know if I missed anyone and who you would vote for:

C: Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, Posada
1B: McGwire, Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Palmeiro, McGriff, Delgado, Thome, Helton, Giambi
2B: Biggio, Alomar, Kent
3B: Chipper Jones, Matt Williams, E. Martinez, Ventura
SS: Ripken, ARod, Jeter, Tejada, Larkin, Garciaparra
LF: Bonds, Henderson, Manny Ramirez, Raines, Albert Belle
CF: Griffey, Jr., Bernie Williams, Lofton, Andruw Jones
RF: Gwynn, Sosa, Sheffield, Ichiro, Canseco, Larry Walker, Vlad Guerrero, Juan Gonzalez
SP: Clemens, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Glavine, Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz, Kevin Brown, Cone, Pettitte
RP: Rivera, Hoffman, Billy Wagner

The Judger-In-Chief

Much has been said over the past six or seven years about George W. Bush and his own personal style--his manner of speaking, his manner of acting, his approach to others. The image that the Republican Party--and perhaps Bush himself--likes to portray the most is that of the plain-talking, cut-through-the-BS, look-you-straight-in-the-eye, old school leader. Over that same period of time, a number of others have tried to figure out if that persona is indeed true, and whether its a good or a bad thing.

What I'd like to focus for a few paragraphs is one aspect of Bush's personna--his ability to accurately judge people. Bush was famously quoted as saying about Russian President Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Bush was very positive about his relationship with Putin at the time, saying he was a good man worthy of leading Russia. Last week's prickly press conference exchange with Putin, where Putin said, right next to Bush, that Russia certainly didn't want an Iraq-style democracy, had to sting Bush. (Not to mention Putin's pushing Russia back towards dictatorship.)

During the same trip to St. Petersburg, Bush seemed to take is warm relationship with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, a bit too far. With cameras and a number of other world leaders in a conference room, Bush came up behind Merkel to give her a surprise neck rub. Her startled expression was caught for the world to see, though it hasn't gotten all that much press attention.

While many have questioned what would have been the press reaction if Clinton had made such an advance, what bothers me more is Bush's judgement. He must have thought that Merkel would have wanted or appreciated such contact, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had read his relationship with her wrong--the same way he appears to have read his relationship with Putin wrong.

There are other examples where Bush's judgement of individuals seems a bit suspect. Hiring criminals in David Safavian and Claude Allen. Nominating Bernard Kerik. Being close friends with Ken Lay. My mother still says "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." By this measure, Bush comes up lacking.

I haven't even gotten into the judgement of situations--I'm willing to give a bit of a pass there, since many people are involved in the evaluation and response to a situation, even though the buck still stops with the President.

But he was indeed elected President, and will be President for two more years. But it makes me increasingly uncomfortable--and my comfort level wasn't real high to begin with--as we look to him to accurately judge individuals and situations in a world that seems to be growing messier and messier by the minute.

At the sound of the flush, please leave a message.

This past March I returned to work in an office after having spent the past two years enjoying the lifestyle of the independent consultant, which is to say getting up when I pleased and working at my desk in my boxers (on a good day, anyway). Ah, good times.

Anyway, in the months that I have been back "working for the man," I have been fascinated and repulsed by something I have observed on an almost daily basis: guys make, receive, and continue cell phone conversations through the entire course of doing their business in the men's room. I'm no stickler for etiquette, believe me, but there is something utterly mortifying about that. At the very least, I have a clear mental list of people whose cell phones I will never ask to borrow.

Call me old fashioned, but I am of the view that the cell phone's place in the men's room is as a means to play Yahtzee or Bubblet. Am I part of some prudish minority on this one? Mind you, the people in my building are not surgeons or magnates. These are not split-second, life-or-death decisions these people are discussing, so urgency isn't the issue. Well, not as far as the cell phone conversations go, anyway.

Jeter v. ARod

This is a topic that PBryon and I were just talking about. So I figured that it could be hashed out here.

As anyone who follows baseball or who lives in the New York area knows, Alex Rodriguez is having a rough time with NY fans and the media this year. There an obvious reason for this. ARod is not quite playing up to his superstar standards this year. Some negative reaction is not unexpected, but what is unexpected is the high level of vilification that he has received in the press and the intense booing he has received from Yankee fans. ARod was the MVP last year and, by consensus, is still clearly one of the 10 best players in the game. Why isn't ARod being cut some slack?

To get a grasp on this question, I think that ARod can be compared with another great Yankee: Derek Jeter. Derek Jeter never gets booed and never gets attacked in the press despite the fact that Jeter has had some slumps and some disappointing seasons in his career. Jeter seems to have an aura that surrounds him -- an aura that ARod, clearly a superior player, lacks. Why?

I think that it has something to do with their personalities. Jeter and ARod have essentially the same personalities in front of the media -- both give bland, inoffensive, and uninteresting answers to the press's questions. The difference is on the field. Jeter seems to express a natural exuberance on the field whereas ARod seems to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. Jeter seems authentic whereas ARod seems pre-programmed. In a way, ARod's approach is the more thoughtful approach. ARod has had much exposure to a therapeutic culture in which his wife (a holder of a Master's degree in psychology)is involved; he speaks to a motivational counselor daily. In a way, this makes ARod's success all the more impressive. A linkage between "thinking too much" and "choking" in athletics is well-established.

Here Goes...

So this group of college buddies started with some of the earliest mass-market PCs, when we all got one when we entered college. By the time we left college, the incoming freshmen were lucky enough to get machines with hard drives. We were still stuck with 5.25 inch floppies.

But for us, it was the beginnings of using these computers to talk to each other, and in the intervening 15-20 years, as we've moved from dorm rooms to apartments to houses; from hollering down the hall to postal mail to calls on the phone to e-mail to the internet; from North Jersey to all over the country (and world), we've always thought our group conversations were highly entertaining, saying that others would get a kick out of them. Here comes the opportunity to test that hypothesis.

What do we like to talk about? Anything and everything. I surmise that there will be posts about politics, music, television, art, sports, relationships--whatever crosses our minds on that particular day. But odds are, there will be some talk about Derek Jeter. Or, in our lingo, Jetter. Don't be surprised to see him pop up in lots of posts.

Like anything new, this will evolve. But if we keep this up, and you keep up reading it, you'll start to figure out our lingo, our idiosyncracies, and our individual and collective senses of humor.

How many of us will actively take part in this blog? I can't say. We all have responsibilites, so posting may go in fits and spurts. We've got a group of 15 of us who've been given the green light to post whatever they want. We'll see where it goes from there.

Why so many? So we can be lazy and still have this blog be somewhat current. And because the net of interested parties from 15 of us is bound to be larger than from any one individual, hopefully giving us some more readership--and the feedback that goes with it.

So here we go, jumping into this blog thing. Hopefully, it'll be a fun pasttime.