What's the Big Deal with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?

Oh, Mellencamp has done some good things. I'm certainly not disputing that. I've just reached that point where *that* song takes me beyond all rational reaction and makes me want to punch something.

I, too, blame Chevy.

A ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.

Great comment, Jack.

Just wait until you see our "coverage" of the Grammy ceremony.

To Mariah's credit, "Best Vocal Performance by a Craaaazy-ass @!$%#" is a very competitive Grammy category.

But that's just it - I don't care who gets inducted. It's irrelevant. Didn't you read the article?

Also, I don't particularly like Mellencamp.

For any music buff the understanding of its history is fundamental.

OK, granted. What's your point?

Like it or not, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has a major influence on public's impression of the genre. So, you should care about what the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame does. Sure the Hall's credibilty is in the toilet, but if you have a problem with the way they present the history of rock, you should stop complaining about it and be more pro-active.

I don't give a damn about the public's impression of the genre, nor do I care much about the accolades of others. I'll honor those who I think deserve to be honored. Sure, it's nice when my opinions coincide with those of others, but if they don't I'm comfortable with that too.

I don't have a problem with the way the Hall presents the history of rock - they can do it how they see fit for all I care.

That doesn't mean it's not idiotic though.

As for being proactive, what do you suggest I do? Picket? Start a petition? Or just write about the music I like? Because I do that, too.

As a music journalist your opinion should not be, "I don't care" but "I do care and Madonna should not be inducted into Hall of Fame and Alice Cooper should be." I did read your article and it was pointless, it is under the opinion section yet provides no insight.

Do me a favor buddy: don't tell me what my opinion should be.

The article is categorized as opinion because it presents the opinion that it's silly to get bent out of shape over something as irrelevant as the Rock Hall's version of history, or anything else they do. Those wankers don't have a monopoly on the history of rock by any stretch of the imagination. If that's peoples' only source of information, they're woefully uninformed.

If you don't think my opinion is insightful... well, I guess I'm OK with that. After all, who are you and where's your credibility?

You have a major media outlet like MSNBC at your disposal and you have nothing to contribute to it. Where is your credibility?

Look, I'm just a guy writing music op-eds in a backwards little corner of the Internet. Somebody at MSNBC read this article after I published it here and decided that my work warranted attention. Take it up with them if you don't like that. You'll have to forgive me, though, if I don't wait around to hear what they say.

Wow, you make a great point there. Now that I think about it, I guess I should let other peoples' opinions bother me.

Look, I'm prepared to consider an argument in favor of this mattering, but so far you haven't offered one. You've just told me that I'm wrong. So what's the deal? Why should it matter to me what these idiots have to say?

I respect greatness, and I'm comfortable with my ability to recognize it. If others disagree, fine. If you can present an argument that convinces me, then I'll change my opinion. All you're doing now is taking incoherent shots across my bow.

That's a bit more like it.

This issue matters enough that we are discussing it and the mainstream media is covering it. This issue is big enough to have a nationally televised induction ceremony.

I'm not convinced that simply because something is televised, or covered by the MSM, that it matters. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C.

There's some pretty irrelevant @!$%# being covered in the media, and there always has been. Meanwhile, stuff that does matter isn't being covered at all. This is a little frustrating, sure, but it's the way of these things, and likely it always will be. Instead of wringing my hands in writing I'm going to proactively seek out my own sources of information and make up my own mind.

And in 200 years from now when we are dead and gone, the Rock Hall of Fame will still be standing as a "piss stain" on the history of rock n' roll. As a true fan of rock n' roll, this should disturb you.

I'm not sure the Rock Hall will be around in 200 years - maybe it will, but the way they're going at the moment they'll be lucky to last 10.

In any case, in my mind it's just a little more bull@!$%# on top of an already-prodigious pile that's not going anywhere no matter what I say or do about it.

If you don't care about the state of rock or its impact on popular culture, you shouldn't be writing about it in an article intended for a public audience. Take a stand. Form real opinion and support it. Protect the dignity of the fine art of rock that you claim to enjoy. Writing a persuasive article on a topic you don't care about is a fruitless excercise.

I'm explicitly not writing about the state of rock or its impact on popular culture. I have very little use for popular culture at all. I just whipped this particular article out in about an hour when I had nothing better to do out of my amusement at the reaction to Madonna's selection, and if it hadn't been linked by MSNBC probably 20 people would've read it and that would've been it. They picked it up for whatever reason, without asking me first, and I certainly didn't write it with that purpose in mind.

Public accolades, broad recognition, and the like aren't what interests me about rock, or about music in general. It's about the music itself. It's about the art, the process of creation, the abiding beauty and power of the thing. When society at large recognizes greatness, that's all well and good - but it's not essential. Greatness need not be identified as such by the masses. It's nice to be recognized for doing something good, but that's not the reason you do it. Public opinion almost always gets things entirely wrong, and what of it?

I can tell you're a serious fan, and I respect that deeply. You know what you're talking about. The history is important to me, too - but it's there whatever silly window-dressing is trying to obscure it. If you're passionate about something, you do the legwork needed to make sure you understand it. If not... well you're in the same boat with most people on most issues.

Rock's "dignity," as you term it, is not dependent on the MSM, the Rock Hall, Rolling Stone, or any of the rest of that bull@!$%#. The state of rock, the dignity of rock - these things are entirely dependent on the music. If artists make good rock music, it will be recognized as such by those who know what they're talking about. That's the only thing that matters to me.

Use the opportuninties given to you by the internet and MSNBC to say something that is elightening and not a rehash of how disgraceful the Hall of Fame is.

I'm going to use my opportunities to say precisely what I please. Sometimes, I'll talk about stuff like this. Sometimes I'll do other stuff. The next article I have planned is a profile of Bill Evans. It'll probably take 10x as much work as this one and get 1/10 the traffic. Still, I'm going to write it because it interests me. If it interests you, read it - if not, don't. But please, don't break my balls about how I'm not making the most of my opportunities. I'm disposing of them in a way that I find rewarding, and that's the end of it.

Sorry you thought this one was a waste of your time.

Hopefully 200 years from now the music that matters will still be around, and no one will give flying f.. about the R&R Hall of fame

Amen.

@ ACM:

As for bad music, I quite like the Frith definition cited in your link above:

Frith gives three common qualities attributed to bad music: inauthentic, [in] bad taste (see also: kitsch), and stupid. He argues that "The marking off of some tracks and genres and artists as 'bad' is a necessary part of popular music pleasure; it is a way we establish our place in various music worlds. And 'bad' is a key word here because it suggests that aesthetic and ethical judgements are tied together here: not to like a record is not just a matter of taste; it is also a matter of argument, and argument that matters."

[Source]

It's interesting to note that we can distinguish between music that is objectively bad and good music that we just don't like.

In the future, will it be the good music that survives, or will it be today's popular stuff, which might survive based on the evolutionary strategy of maximum reproduction to flood the musical gene pool? Scary thought.

This is a scary thought, but I tend to think that the good stuff will survive. Britney Spears has sold an absurd number of records, but she's already becoming no more than a humorous footnote. The same is true for Michael Jackson to some extent, although his musical influence will be remembered more than Britney's. At any rate, we're not sitting around these days talking about the greatness of Foghat, right? Jesus, when was the last time you heard that band mentioned?

Anyway, I guess my point is that things like the media and the Rock Hall trump stuff up to seem important, but it doesn't often stand the test of time. There will always be a few gems slipping through the cracks, but the best of the best will generally be remembered and recognized as such. I'd say on balance, we do better recognizing greatness after the fact than we do in the moment (example).

@ My Liege:

IE: folk/blues/indigenous music, where the simplicity and raw-ness is what makes it great; or punk and/or hip-hop, where authenticity and point of view are perceived as being more important than musicality or virtuosity.

I think there's a difference between simplicity and lack of skill. For instance, I find writing simply challenging - if I don't edit my work, it comes out verbose and tortuous. You're absolutely right that those are things that tend to make folk/blues/indigenous music attractive, but you'll still find virtuosic performances in those genres.

More generally, I think it's dangerous to lump whole genres of music together and say, "This is what makes that genre compelling." I have to admit that I don't know enough about punk to cite an example. With respect to hip-hop, though, your assertion only applies to a certain subset of an incredibly diverse genre. You can't tell me that this doesn't put artistry ahead of authenticity and point of view (in the stereotypical hip-hop sense):

She glides but just seems like she floats
And these folks decide to crush her wings until they're permanently broke
She rides gusts of wind just by the way she spoke
She crys but loves to sing songs of freedom and hope
On the eastside hustling discussing things that we quote
In shallow conversations as if we have deep throats
We choke on our confusion
Not sure if it's a heat stroke or if we need coats
Trading in our cheap jokes for her C notes
I see notes being passed
I ask to see what these creeps wrote
Define silly kids and flying privileges revoked
Ski slopes have been blocked off they can't chance it
Had weights tied to her ankles she most definitely cant skip
Down, she's held down by the transcripts my hands grip
Tried to tie her wings back on before they're once again clipped
Panic stricken, she'll remain stuck
On a titantic sinking, shes trying to stay up
Change her plan thinking it's OK
See this is strange but
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in a way that kept them chained up
I'd like to see
Her take flight into the stars
Instead of letting her fly free they keep her in jars
Instead of letting 'em fly free they keep 'em in jars
I put my hand to the glass so hard that
It might break the prison bars
It isn't hard to see why they keep her captive
Shes naturally attractive
Speaks with adlibs, shes uncommonly talented
Ain't enough adjectives to do her disposition justice
Kids are wishing for just a kiss and its a mission to touch her lips
They can't trust her with
Freedom of movement thats a chance to lose her quick
If she ups and splits
We might as well call that discussion quits
They have ways to keep her down the government's underlings
Enslave people in this town especially if their culture's rich
Exploiting talents making her do a bunch of tricks
With the rest of the wingless imports
Repeatedly told you aint a fairy, you just a @!$%#
Just a @!$%#, with a butt thats thick
So rub your tits, and thrust your hips
And suck my dick, and run your @!$%#, and run your @!$%#, and run your @!$%#

[Source]

Roald Dahl, eh? That was obscure...

kitsch excludes from view everything that humans find difficult to come to terms with, offering instead a sanitised view of the world in which "all answers are given in advance and preclude any questions". His examples include commercial art, musak, stale intimate relationships, and Soviet Communism. So with this definition, perhaps greatness in music, art, or anything, is defined by things that are challenging of convention, out of the ordinary, new. So great music need not be defined by virtuosity, popularity, or intelligence, but by originality.

Great stuff there.

Although I PERSONALLY agree with Frith, in a broad sense I would disagree and argue that music is completely subjective. I might personally think that Britney sucks. ("Oops I did it again" does nothing for me). But my opinion shouldn't count anymore than anybody else's, even if I have a doctorate in Music history. I mean it's great for people to talk about music, and put things in perspective-give your POV & all, but critics and the music "establishment" too often act like a bunch of nazis.

This is certainly a valid point. One perfectly valid standard for measuring art is enjoyment - if people enjoy Britney, that's fine.

I guess my major beef with pop music of that vein is that so little of what's going on is actually Britney's (or whoever's) responsibility. As far as I know she's not much of a songwriter, and her singing is engineered and produced to make her voice sound the way it does. She's something of a dancer, I suppose, if you're into that thing, but it's a bit of a farce when an act like that is marketed as music.

That said, if people enjoy it - fine. I just wish I didn't have to see and hear about her and her ilk everywhere I go.

I say: just plug the frikkin guitar in and make some noise.

That's a very "punk" philosophy.

Hehe - oops!

stuff that stinks less almost smells good.

It's almost like politics, isn't it?

Heheh - I was just about to finish that for you. You're right, of course. For those who don't know: Leonard Cohen.