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?
posted by JonM @ 12:01 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
A thorough and well presented summation of what has been an entertaining several days of e-mails, thank you JonM.
I have long been disdainful of the whole idea of a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Musical taste is such a subjective thing; I just don't get how you can come up with any kind of fair consensus on who merits this kind of honor. Consequently, I have paid little attention to the inductions. I know next to nothing about the process by which artists are voted in.
My own musical tastes are such that I would never expect to see any of my fave (non-"classic" rock) artists inducted (indeed, this undoubtedly plays a role in my apathy toward the RRHoF). But when I see artists like the Eagles and U2 inducted, I wonder...why not Journey and XTC? [DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a Journey fan and I am NOT advocating for their induction--I shudder to think, JonM, that I had left that impression with you at one point!].
Then, too, there appears to be a heavy US bias in play. Madness would seem to have a lot recommending them from all three of JonM's criteria, but they were/are largely a phenomenon of the UK.
Overall, I remain skeptical of
the merits of the RRHoF as a reliable instrument for gauging R&R "greatness." Like PBryon, I find the lack of hard and fast criteria for induction problematic.
I like the RnR HOF for some of the more simple reasons that JonM outlines. “It’s a fun way of having a centralized forum to discuss ‘rock’ and debate the merits of various historical performers and groups.” Also, that forum has certainly led to a broadening of music listening experiences for at least some people (e.g. some kid who likes Led Zepplin learns about Robert Johnson through the Hall). It would be tough to say that the Hall does any real damage (however you want to define it), and it probably does a little good. Unlike the Baseball Hall of Fame, the Rock Hall is not officially affiliated with anything, so the stakes seem a little lower. Unlike baseball players, young guitar players don’t start out dreaming of being in the Hall of Fame. The musicians themselves probably mostly view the Hall somewhat ironically, at best (again, unlike most baseball players). We should feel invited to look at the Hall and everything associated with it with a knowing smirk, as well. To put it another way, I probably care about music more than I care about baseball, but though I am concerned about who gets into the Baseball Hall of Fame, I couldn’t care less who gets into the Rock Hall. It seems to me that the selection committee does a reasonable job in its white bread way, though I know that many bands that I love are not going to get in and some performers that I hate are already in.
More specifically, I don’t find the criteria vague, as JonM does:
“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.”
This criteria seems to eliminate the concept that we dance around when we debate the Hall: whether or not a band is good or, more specifically, whether or not I think a band is good—whether or not I like a particular band. If I were a voter, I would think it would be a useful exercise to imagine what the history of rock and roll would look like if the particular artist or band in question had never existed. I don’t like Billy Joel. I think the world would be better off if he had never existed, but his immense popularity did have a significant impact on the perpetuation, say, of rock and roll. I’m not sure that Jimmy Buffet would be in the same category, but I think the Grateful Dead are. If I were writing a concise encyclopedia of rock and roll, I would have a Billy Joel and Grateful Dead entries, but probably no Jimmy Buffet entry. Probably no hair metal band stands out enough on its own, but I would have an entry on hair metal. The prog rock and disco bands JonM mentions would have their own entry. It seems to me that a similar standard is useful, and is used, for the RnR HOF. The only change I would make is that anyone suspected of using performance enhancing drugs in any way (and this would include performing under the influence of alcohol) should NOT be allowed in the hall. It sends the wrong message to our children and is not fair to the other artists who did not rely on drugs to assist their creativity.
Sometimes I find it frustrating that there are members of the R&RHOF that I just simply don't like. (I guess I'll continue to pick on Billy Joel here, but Patti Smith falls in there too.) I guess I think I should be able to look at the members of the HOF and be able to appreciate why they were inducted. In some cases, I can't. But maybe that's no different than other Halls of Fame. Maybe Billy Joel and Phil Rizzutto are more similar than we think.
I also think the R&RHOF may be a bit too perfomer-centric. I'm always perplexed at the accolades given to a singer when they didn't write the words to a song or the music to accompany the words. Granted, I don't know how many people that fit this are actually in the Hall.
We're now to the point where the actual music is getting shaped by producers. I wonder if Rick Rubin will be the no-brainer inductee that I think he should be.
Some good points here. I especially agree with jmons about the American bias. That definitely has to be addressed, but the institution is still young. In fact, I could see a strong argument made for XTC and I wouldn't mind at all if they made it.
I disagree, however, about the stipulation of hard-and-fast criteria; because of the inherent subjective element of taste, no such hard-and-fast criteria could ever be discovered.
This is not to say that all taste in art, literature, or music is subjective. I think that it is capable to persuade someone of an artist's merits or demerits. There must be some shared consensus that is being appealed to when that is done. Conversations about artistic merit have some meaning and that meaning has to be explained in some way.
For example, there are reasons why Ethan Frome is a bad novel and thus why all of the high school English teachers who continue to assign it are in error. These are not the same kind of reasons that explain why something like taste in food is almost entirely subjective -- e.g. I don't think that there are any reasons to persuade someone that chocolate ice cream is good.
I also agree with "anonymous" about the institution really just being a fun forum for debate. There's nothing wrong with that and if the induction process has led one person to discover the music of the great Little Willie John, that's enough to justify the institution's ridiculousness.
Pbryon is right about Rick Rubin; he certainly should be an obvious inductee.
I wonder about Mutt Lange. He probably deserves induction too. He might have a bit more difficult time than Rubin because he has been associated with some bad music, but probably more than anyone else he developed the 80s pop rock sound. I certainly think that he should go in before Def Leppard goes in.
And I love the fact that we are picking on Billy Joel. In my opinion, despite the fact that there are plenty of artists who I don't like in the hall, Joel is the one truly bad artist who has been inducted.
Post a Comment
<< Home