|
Post by kds on May 8, 2023 13:19:07 GMT
With each passing year, I find I care a little less about the trolls at the RNRHOF. I have no doubt that Eddie Trunk will be ranting and raving about it, but at this point, getting mad at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is like getting mad at a baby for waking you up in the middle of the night. That's how I feel about it. Once you know what something is, it is a waste of energy to get upset about it being what it is. "The sun came up again this morning, damnit! Stupid sun! It better not rise again tomorrow morning, I tell ya..." (Good recipe for being continuously upset.) I was getting a little more optimistic about them in the mid 2010s when they appeared to start making an effort to clear the backlog of deserving rock acts from the 60s and 70s (Purple, Chicago, Steve Miller, etc). But, it seems like the last several years, they're back to their old ways. Non rock acts outnumbering rock acts, etc. Although, while I'm not a big Rage Against the Machine fan, I'll bet Tom Morello even thinks their induction over Iron Maiden and Soundgarden is insane.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 8, 2023 13:24:07 GMT
Yeah, I think the "but this isn't even ROCK music!" sentiment just has to be replaced with "it's a 'Popular Music Hall of Fame'" sentiment. That's what it is. Awkwardly named now, sure. But that's the way it goes. Rock music is less popular (by far) over the past 20 years as compared to what it was when the HoF was begun, but the name has brand equity.
It's funny thinking what Tom Morello would think. Actually, being the anti-establishment, protest-minded sort of person he is, he may well think the whole concept is full of it. (Which it is...) The idea of a black-tie event celebrating the music of teenage rebellion--sex, drugs and rock and roll--is pretty absurd. That's probably the biggest reason I don't care all that much who gets inducted. If you joined a band with the dream of someday putting on a tux and rubbing elbows with industry executives in a fancy L.A. or N.Y. venue, well, you're kind of an odd duck.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 8, 2023 13:30:32 GMT
Yeah, I think the "but this isn't even ROCK music!" sentiment just has to be replaced with "it's a 'Popular Music Hall of Fame'" sentiment. That's what it is. Awkwardly named now, sure. But that's the way it goes. Rock music is less popular (by far) over the past 20 years as compared to what it was when the HoF was begun, but the name has brand equity.It's funny thinking what Tom Morello would think. Actually, being the anti-establishment, protest-minded sort of person he is, he may well think the whole concept is full of it. (Which it is...) The idea of a black-tie event celebrating the music of teenage rebellion--sex, drugs and rock and roll--is pretty absurd. That's probably the biggest reason I don't care all that much who gets inducted. If you joined a band with the dream of someday putting on a tux and rubbing elbows with industry executives in a fancy L.A. or N.Y. venue, well, you're kind of an odd duck. That's pretty much where I am with it now. Once they starting including rappers several years ago, it became obvious that they use "rock" as an all encompassing term for popular music. I still feel like it's a little silly, but as you say, it is what it is. While on vacation, my father and I were discussing a little bit of the downfall of the popularity of rock music. I think I've made peace with it more than he has. I basically said that the golden era of rock music pretty much ended in the 90s (even including grunge which I don't much care for), and it's been stagnant ever since. So, it's not surprising that the majority of younger folks have latched onto other genres that are a little more relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 14, 2023 12:06:38 GMT
Stephen Pearcy, the frontman for 80s LA hard rock band Ratt, has recently complained about the HoF ignoring 80s hard rock and metal, which I think is inarguably true. But when he says "“The Hollywood scene, they don't give a shit. You're not gonna see Motley [Crue] up there any time soon, or Ratt" ... my first thought was, 'wait, do you think Ratt actually belongs in the HoF?' Because at first glance, that seemed ridiculous. Of course I remember them, as they were one of the bigger, earlier bands of that genre in that era, behind Van Halen and Bon Jovi, but certainly highly visible on MTV through the mid-late 80s. So I checked the numbers. Ratt's first five albums were all #26 or higher on the charts, and went gold or better (four of the five went platinum of better): - Out of the Cellar (1984), 3x platinum, #7 - Invasion of Your Privacy (1985), 2x platinum, #7 - Dancing Undercover (1986), platinum, #26 - Reach for the Sky (1988), platinum, #17 - Detonator (1990) gold, #23 While they had some big videos, their singles didn't perform as well on the charts. Only two reached the top 40 or went gold: "Round and Round" (1984, #12, gold) and "Lay It Down" (1985, #40, gold). That record doesn't jump out at me as obviously HoF-worthy ... but it ain't chopped liver, either. Four platinum-or-better albums in a five-year period? If I had more ambition, I'd actually want to compare these numbers to some of the acts in the HoF. Because I might owe Mr. Pearcy an apology for my initially dismissive thought.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 15, 2023 13:18:10 GMT
Some of those sales numbers are actually pretty surprising. Personally, I always viewed Ratt as a 2nd or maybe 3rd tier band from that era. In recent years, I've seen fan comments on music sites and social media that say things like "they should've been an huge as Crue" or "they have a better catalog than Bon Jovi" or whatever, but I'm just not hearing it. I remember seeing them at, I think, the first M3 Festival in 2009, and thought they barely had enough top material to fill an hour long set.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2023 12:37:05 GMT
Shortly after having made some controversial remarks in defending the interviewees he selected for his new book, the RnR HoF has removed Jann Wenner from its leadership. Wenner had been asked why his new book of interviews included exclusively white, male artists: Bono, John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger, etc. He defended his choices, saying: “It’s not that they’re inarticulate, although, go have a deep conversation with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin. Please, be my guest. You know, Joni (Mitchell) was not a philosopher of rock ’n’ roll. She didn’t, in my mind, meet that test. Of Black artists — you know, Stevie Wonder, genius, right? I suppose when you use a word as broad as ‘masters,’ the fault is using that word. Maybe Marvin Gaye, or Curtis Mayfield? I mean, they just didn’t articulate at that level.” Look, Wenner has a right to interview whomever he wants, and to republish whichever interviews he wants. But his choices, and his answers to criticism, are telling. I think anyone with 2/3 of a brain would agree that a person could find black or female artists who provide extremely interesting, articulate answers to questions. But as I kept thinking some months (a year?) back when I watched Joe Rogan interview him, Wenner's universe is very specific. He is very much that white, American, ex-hippie Boomer. His idea of "masters" [the title of the book] is pretty clearly that of 1968-74 countercultural rock and roll. So when he's trying to imagine which women or nonwhites might warrant selection, he can't come up with any. But history didn't end with Grace Slick and Janis Joplin! (No offense for anyone here who likes them ... but neither of them would even come up in my discussion of the greatest women in rock history.) Black artists: he can only imagine those who had their mega-success in that same late 60s, early 70s time frame. Uh...I believe it's no big challenge to think of some others: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, and some others who were there from the beginning!? Didn't Wenner ever interview any of them? (It wouldn't shock me if the answer is no.) I doubt he's more racist or sexist than the typical liberal of his era, which is to say, he's not (by any historical standards). But I do think he's very much a product of his time and place, his circumstances. He is very much in his lane, and at his age, that's just normal. Probably not worth making a huge deal about if you're the media or an activist, and probably not worth fighting back on if you're him. One would expect such a public figure to be more cognizant of his environment, though. If he failed to anticipate pushback--and what's more, if his editors and publisher failed to anticipate it--that's just embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 17, 2023 18:23:58 GMT
I was surprised to see this whole thing transpire. I would not have expected this kind of rhetoric to come from somebody like Wenner. Because he was part of the counterculture, I thought he would've been more thoughtful and inclusive. Because he had to flow with the changes in music and, well, basically everything as a publisher of a magazine, he came up very short with this particular issue. I always thought he was an intelligent person (though I saw/read very little from him), but he comes off as ignorant and stupid. Talk about self-destruction. Obviously I misjudged him.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2023 18:36:37 GMT
I was surprised to see this whole thing transpire. I would not have expected this kind of rhetoric to come from somebody like Wenner. Because he was part of the counterculture, I thought he would've been more thoughtful and inclusive. Because he had to flow with the changes in music and, well, basically everything as a publisher of a magazine, he came up very short with this particular issue. I always thought he was an intelligent person (though I saw/read very little from him), but he comes off as ignorant and stupid. Talk about self-destruction. Obviously I misjudged him. I have to say, I'd probably have said the same until I heard his aforementioned interview with Rogan. It was embarrassingly stereotypical. That made me think otherwise. I think he is very progressive in the context of a young man in the late '60s or early '70s. And I think he is woefully out of touch with everything that came after.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 11, 2023 12:03:00 GMT
Paul Rodgers recently told rock media personality Eddie Trunk that he was invited to join the RnR HoF, but turned it down. This seems interesting, but while I don't want to out-and-out call Mr. Rodgers a liar... Rodgers's story makes it sound as if he were asked prior to the first class: Ertegun discusses it as if it had yet to be finalized, but that it was in the works, and Rodgers had never heard of it. But Paul Rodgers would not have been eligible to be inducted until 1994, 25 years after Free's first album. (That also requires that Free be considered RnR HoF-worthy...and on initial eligibility, no less.) Are we to believe that Ertegun had asked Rodgers almost a decade before he was eligible, just to keep in mind? Or conversely, that Rodgers had still never heard of the HoF nearly a decade after it had been established, despite its massive publicity? Honestly, I don't know what to make of that recollection. But I think he's mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 22, 2024 12:52:50 GMT
Last night, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced their Class of 2024. It seems as though they've decided to elect the entire ballot, and then some. ultimateclassicrock.com/rock-hall-of-fame-inductees-announced-2024/The one that really stuck out to me was Jimmy Buffett. As far as I know, he'd never appeared on a ballot, and was never really considered. But, he did pass away last September, and some "serious" artists paid tribute to him at the Hollywood Bowl last week, so he's in.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 22, 2024 13:07:29 GMT
Last night, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced their Class of 2024. It seems as though they've decided to elect the entire ballot, and then some. ultimateclassicrock.com/rock-hall-of-fame-inductees-announced-2024/The one that really stuck out to me was Jimmy Buffett. As far as I know, he'd never appeared on a ballot, and was never really considered. But, he did pass away last September, and some "serious" artists paid tribute to him at the Hollywood Bowl last week, so he's in. There's nothing better for an artist's career than dying.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 22, 2024 13:12:33 GMT
Last night, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced their Class of 2024. It seems as though they've decided to elect the entire ballot, and then some. ultimateclassicrock.com/rock-hall-of-fame-inductees-announced-2024/The one that really stuck out to me was Jimmy Buffett. As far as I know, he'd never appeared on a ballot, and was never really considered. But, he did pass away last September, and some "serious" artists paid tribute to him at the Hollywood Bowl last week, so he's in. There's nothing better for an artist's career than dying. This is true, the younger the better for one's legacy. I did wonder, after Jimmy passed, if we'd see a bit of a revisionist look at his music, for better or for worse. On one hand, I do hope people realize there's more to him than Parrotheads, margaritas, and cheeseburgers. On the other one, I've always found it a bit odd that some of these artists need to die to get such attention.
|
|