Why Rush Won't Get In to the Rock Hall

[WordMan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29903313/

Article laying out the situation for why Prog Rock, and Rush in particular, is not likely to feel the love of the RRHoF.

I am not a Rushie but I went through the Prog phase every earnest rock music lover went through in the 70's and 80's, and I just saw them last year when my closest total-Rush-head friend was having his bachelor party (how classic is that? It fits totally with how Rush was worked into the plot of that new movie, I Love You, Man - so I hear...). Even if you are not a big fan, they deserve a lot of respect for their music, their longevity, their relationship with a huge fan base, etc. In their own, Canadian, Prog sort of way, they totally rock.

Bottom line is that, whether you or I like them or not, Rush and a few other Prog Rockers deserve the nod.

Ah - the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame - bringing music lovers together for 30 years.

I still can't believe Jefferson Airplane lobbied their way into the Hall...

[Meltdown]

Interesting article -- thanks for posting.

I've always been ambivalent about prog (somehow I bypassed that prog phase you speak of, unless Pink Floyd counts) -- but I recognize that's a matter of my personal taste.

As far as I'm concerned, if there's room for ZZ Top and AC/DC, there's room for Yes and Rush.

[An Arky]

I'm not much of a prog fan, but groups like Rush and Yes deserve to be in as much as anyone.

The RRHOF is as irrelevant as the Grammys, IMHO. If I was in one of those deserving-but-not-in bands, I'd wear it as a badge of honor.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by An Arky

I'm not much of a prog fan, but groups like Rush and Yes deserve to be in as much as anyone.

Same here, but I'd also nominate King Crimson and Genesis. I could never really get into Yes, and Rush was hit and miss, but King Crimson and Genesis were unfuckwithable.

[An Arky]

I'd go along with those two, as well...I'm surprised Genesis isn't in.

[astorian]

I admit, I was a huge prog-rock fan in my youth (and still am, to a lesser extent). So, I'm biased in favor of Yes, the Moody Blues, King Crimson and Genesis, all of whom belong in the R & R Hall of Fame, in my opinion.

But even if I HATED those bands, that would be irrelevant.

There are a LOT of bands and artists I hate that I would HAVE to vote for if I were on the Hall of Fame committee. Even if I HATED Elvis or the Beatles, I'd HAVE to vote for them, because their popularity and influence were enormous.

Even though I never much liked the Ramones, honesty would force me to admit they belong in the Hall, because they were extremely influential, and practically created the punk phenomenon.

Even though I HATE Madonna, I'd have voted for her because anyone who's sold that many records and launched so many fashion trends BELONGS.

So, never mind whether you LIKE the Moody Blues. Look at the facts:

1) They've sold tens of millions of records.
2) They've filled large arenas all over the world for decades
3) They made hit records over a lengthy period (from "Go Now" in 1965 to "Your Wildest Dreams" in 1986)
4) They inspired numerous imitators, and sparked an entire rock movement

Objectively, that means they BELONG in the Hall of Fame.

[Birdmonster]

Originally Posted by An Arky

The RRHOF is as irrelevant as the Grammys, IMHO.

An Arky for the win. When they inducted John Effing Mellencamp last year, that sealed the deal for me. Not that there aren't good artists in there---indeed, most of them are pantheon-level talents---but it's always struck me as a fairly ridiculous idea to begin with.

And, for what it's worth, God bless Rush.

[drastic_quench]

The short answer isn't "Geddy Lee's voice"?

[astorian]

Of course, if King Crimson were inducted, there isn't a banquet hall anywhere big enough to hold everyone who's ever been a member...

[Birdmonster]

Originally Posted by drastic_quench

The short answer isn't "Geddy Lee's voice"?

It's actually that he's far too handsome.

[RickJay]

I don't think it's quite as irrelevant as the Grammys yet, if for no other reason than the Grammies were irrelevant - at least in terms of recognizing rock and pop music - almost from the moment they were created. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame didn't become stupid for at least a few years.

Metallica, holy shit. Like, do they know Metallica is a big prank?

[Madd Maxx]

I'm not a huge Rush fan, but I do agree that they should be in the RRHOF.

RickJay, the only reason that I'm going to watch the RRHOF is because Metallica is getting inducted.

[Birdmonster]

Eric Clapton is in there THREE TIMES. Leaving aside my strident hatred for the Clap, there's just no reason to have any artist in there three times. Patently stupid.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Metallica, holy shit. Like, do they know Metallica is a big prank?

Metallica definitely deserves to be in there for all their 80s work. In my opinion, there's no room for debate, they simply were that important and influential. But, even so, even Metallica tooks cues from the world of progressive rock (compositionally, at least) in sculpting their sound and their version of metal. Progressive rock needs to be represented, it's too huge and influential of a subgenre within rock to ignore.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Metallica definitely deserves to be in there for all their 80s work. In my opinion, there's no room for debate, they simply were that important and influential. But, even so, even Metallica tooks cues from the world of progressive rock (compositionally, at least) in sculpting their sound and their version of metal. Progressive rock needs to be represented, it's too huge and influential of a subgenre within rock to ignore.

Well put, sir.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

Leaving aside my strident hatred for the Clap...

*snerk*

Nice to see you posting again, sir. I don't necessarily agree with your opinion on Clapton - he's not my cuppa either, but I respect a lot of his (mostly early) work and influence - but I know where you're coming from. And your basic point about the RRHoF is spot on...

[Chase Ransom]

The only reason I ever watch is because I get to see Keith Richards mumble some crap on stage - which I find hillarious. Paul Schaffer also does a good job. And once in a while you get to see a great act like Prince's stunt at the end of a song one year (he was only on as a guitarist that time), when he tossed his guitar in the air at the end of the song and it just dissapeared. What a showman.

Other than that, the RRHOF to me is about as relevant as a Star on the sidewalk somewhere in California.

[howye]

I am a huge Rush fan, and at one time the RRHOF thing bothered me. But then I came to the realization that it is more Rock and Roll to be on the outside and not care, then to be on the outside desperately wanting to be a part of the cool kids club. Rush has been a vital, and changing musical group for over thirty years, I will take that over mere popularity any day.

[Birdmonster]

Yeah, Wordman, I agree about some early Clap, but with I think his solo career is an atrocity, which he was also inducted for. It's to the point where they'd induct Eric Clapton for a particularly impressive bowel movement.

And, yes, I too agree with pulykamell. Setting aside my aforesaid scorning of the RRHOF, they've got Sabbath & Zepellin in there (both considered "metal" by critics, though I'd quibble with Zep, certainly) and Metallica, but no prog? They've got plenty of rappers in there (Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC this year), who, hate to break it to you, are NOT rock 'n' roll. That's just bizarre. I mean, those are worth artists, influential, ground-breaking, and I suppose an argument could be made for Run DMC (Aerosmith cross-over, used a lot of guitar samples), but Grandmaster Flash? I can get down with his songs, but they're simply not RnR. They're hip-hop.

What a pointless institution.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by RickJay

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame didn't become stupid for at least a few years.

Disagreed. Joke from the first, much like Paul Allen's Rock Experience idiocy in Seattle. A mixture of dumb hippie nostalgia and pop (not real rock, hence many of the incongruities noted herein) pap for the masses.

John Strausbaugh rips into the RRHOF pretty effectively, in pretty much those terms, in this book:

http://www.culturevulture.net/books/RockTilYouDrop.htm

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

It's actually that he's far too handsome.

When you can play as well as Geddy Lee you can afford to look a little frumpy.

[Typo Negative]

RUSH is entirely too cool for the RRHOF.

[PunditLisa]

I think Geddy Lee's voice is like fingernails raked along a chalkboard but yeah, Rush probably deserves to be in as much as anyone else.

And John Mellencamp, too.

[Birdmonster]

Why Mellencamp? I know you can't account for taste and I know my opinion about his worthiness is certainly colored by that, but he's basically just a second-rate Springsteen, right?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I remember visiting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and being just utterly depressed. There was just so much of it about nostalgia over dead people, and very little of it that gave me any hope for the future.

There was a special edition of Rolling Stone about 5 years ago which listed the top 500 albums of all time. Sgt. Pepper's was number one, but from there it said more about the biases of Jan Wenner and Rolling Stone than it did about rock and roll. I find exactly the same kind of attitude at the Hall of Fame.

Genesis is actually the one that I find the strangest - the fact that it's actually two different bands - the Peter Gabriel prog rock period and the Phil Collins million-sellout, I mean, million-seller period.

It's very odd to have such an 'establishment' celebration of an anti-establishment art form.

And am I the only one who's amazed that Rush are still together after all this time? Shouldn't the drummer have exploded by now or something?

[Birdmonster]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

And am I the only one who's amazed that Rush are still together after all this time? Shouldn't the drummer have exploded by now or something?

I have long believed Neil Pert is an android. I defy you to prove me wrong.

[Chase Ransom]

The list is full of "WTF" for an institution called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Bee Gees? Jackson 5? Madonna? I think if you read the article Wiki has on the institution, you quickly realize there is no legitimate merit to being inducted.

The question is: Does Rush give a crap about the RRHOF?

I dont

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

I have long believed Neil Pert is an android. I defy you to prove me wrong.

I thought something similar about Geddy Lee when I first saw Rush on the 'Caress of Steel' tour - he's playing pedals, keyboards, bass and singing at the same time? What planet did he grow up on?

[Birdmonster]

Chase: I've begun to expect nobody does. I mean, do you think the Ramones were thinking "Man. Launching an entire genre was good, but being in here with Steely Dan and Elton and Billy Joel? This puts everything it all in perspective."

[thirdname]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

I thought something similar about Geddy Lee when I first saw Rush on the 'Caress of Steel' tour - he's playing pedals, keyboards, bass and singing at the same time? What planet did he grow up on?

If that impresses you, check out this video of an 11-year-old girl playing all the parts of YYZ at the same time, except for the drums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XsYuHbXZUk

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by riker1384

If that impresses you, check out this video of an 11-year-old girl playing all the parts of YYZ at the same time, except for the drums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XsYuHbXZUk

Well, yeah, it does impress me because I've been experimenting with laying one guitar across the top of the keyboard while playing another guitar that's strapped really tight to my chest and playing piano at the same time. Sometimes it works; most of the time, I just get confused and screw up. I have quite a lot of respect for anyone who can keep simultaneous multiple instruments straight in their heads for any length of time.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by WordMan

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29903313/


Ah - the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame - bringing music lovers together for 30 years.

I still can't believe Jefferson Airplane lobbied their way into the Hall...

The Airplane would be worthy of fame for any of White Rabbit, Somebody to Love or Crown of Creation, each separately or in combo. A RRHOA is a stupid idea anyway. A remembrance museum for those instantly called to memory? Sounds like a place for tourists to drop bucks.

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

Why Mellencamp? I know you can't account for taste and I know my opinion about his worthiness is certainly colored by that, but he's basically just a second-rate Springsteen, right?

Pick up the Big Daddy album. Mellencamp at his best is every bit as good as Springsteen at his best. Big Daddy is as good as Tunnel of Love.

[Birdmonster]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Pick up the Big Daddy album. Mellencamp at his best is every bit as good as Springsteen at his best. Big Daddy is as good as Tunnel of Love.

"Tunnel of Love" kinda stinks, IMHO. If you're gonna compare Mellencamp to "Greetings from Asbury Park" or "Born to Run" or "The River" (disc one) or "Nebraska" or any pretty much any of the others (before "The Rising"), I'd be on board.

And YYZ girl? Mediocre.

Just kidding. I love when 11 year olds can make me feel like a paltry hack.

[HoboStew]

Count me in the "Rush should be in" vote. Their virtuosity is unquestionable and yes I do think Geddy Lee's voice is a major stumbling block for many people, myself included.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

"Tunnel of Love" kinda stinks, IMHO. If you're gonna compare Mellencamp to "Greetings from Asbury Park" or "Born to Run" or "The River" (disc one) or "Nebraska" or any pretty much any of the others (before "The Rising"), I'd be on board.

And YYZ girl? Mediocre.

Just kidding. I love when 11 year olds can make me feel like a paltry hack.

Springsteen's early stuff has more high energy rock, but Tunnel of Love or The River is mature, sophisticated and great stuff. Asbury or Darkness are still good for me, but I cannot listen to an early Springsteen album anymore without thinking that he has done much better stuff. If you don't like the quieter Springsteen, you won't like quieter Mellencamp.

[Birdmonster]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Springsteen's early stuff has more high energy rock, but Tunnel of Love or The River is mature, sophisticated and great stuff. Asbury or Darkness are still good for me, but I cannot listen to an early Springsteen album anymore without thinking that he has done much better stuff. If you don't like the quieter Springsteen, you won't like quieter Mellencamp.

It's not that I don't like quieter Springsteen---"Nebraska" is phenomenal and I have big soft spots for "Devils and Dust" and "Ghost of Tom Joad." I guess "Tunnel of Love" just doesn't do it for me, for whatever reason. The production is definitely part of it.

Knowing that you suggested a quieter 'Camp album, I'm gonna give it a rotation in the next few days. Anything a bit more to check out on the other side of the aisle?

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

It's not that I don't like quieter Springsteen---"Nebraska" is phenomenal and I have big soft spots for "Devils and Dust" and "Ghost of Tom Joad." I guess "Tunnel of Love" just doesn't do it for me, for whatever reason. The production is definitely part of it.

Knowing that you suggested a quieter 'Camp album, I'm gonna give it a rotation in the next few days. Anything a bit more to check out on the other side of the aisle?

Lonesome Jubilee is about one album prior to Big Daddy, and it is really where he starts getting in the more oblique form of story telling. But he is still using anthems there. Move on to Big Daddy, where he has Theo and Henry, Jackie Brown and Mansions in Heaven and he is really getting into the despair of the blues, but finding a silver lining of redemption in faith and community. The end of the 80s was the end of following new music for me (for the most part). I've got a thousand albums and don't really need any new rock and roll music, although I occasionally hear something good. I going back to the broad category of classical to get new stuff for me now. It really is quite rich. But it's not kid stuff.

[CaveMike]

Originally Posted by An Arky

The RRHOF is as irrelevant as the Grammys, IMHO. If I was in one of those deserving-but-not-in bands, I'd wear it as a badge of honor.

Thirded.

I am a Rush fan and I like it that they are not in the HoF. My perspective is that the HoF insiders have a vision of what is Rock and Roll. This is completely acceptable, admirable even, but I don't share this vision. The roadblock that the HoF faces is that it realized this vision several years ago. Now they are spinning their wheels try to redefine it in order to keep the money rolling (and rocking) in. I don't find this particularly admirable and would prefer not to have Rush, or really anyone, a part of it.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Dare I suggest there is a certain prejudice against Canadian bands that did not form or do most of their work in the US? The Band, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen are all Canadian, yes, but I would venture to say they had their biggest success and influence after they went to the states. Whereas The Guess Who, Lighthouse, The Stampeders, Rush and Max Webster/Kim Mitchell, among many others, have not really 'cracked' the US market nor consciousness in quite the same way.

Sort of along the same lines as why The Tragically Hip are huge in Canada but largely unknown or ignored in the States.

[Apocalypso]

If I were in a band like Rush, I'd know that we reached out to millions of fans, made some good music, and were a major influence. The snotty opinions of a few people who have nothing better to do than compile lists of "the greatest x of all time" wouldn't and shouldn't mean anything. The fans know, the band knows, and nothing else matters.

- Not a huge Rush fan, although I like some of their stuff. This could really apply to almost any band. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is as meaningless as all the "Greatest x of all time" shows put out by VH1, or a similar list put out by any magazine. There's no definitive "greatest" list of anything.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Metallica definitely deserves to be in there for all their 80s work. In my opinion, there's no room for debate, they simply were that important and influential. But, even so, even Metallica tooks cues from the world of progressive rock (compositionally, at least) in sculpting their sound and their version of metal. Progressive rock needs to be represented, it's too huge and influential of a subgenre within rock to ignore.

Metallica are deserving, but there's no way in hell they should get in before Priest. Metallica helped create a subgenre; Judas Priest helped create the genre.

It's bad enough that it took until 2006 for Sabbath to get in, and Iggy Pop/the Stooges still aren't.

The RRHOF is a joke.

[statij]

Of course Rush should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Granted I'm mostly a fan, but aside from their obvious badassocity, they've had a pretty good run of very radio friendly hits over a decent stretch of time (and I will miss a bunch, I'm sure):

Working Man, 1974
Fly by Night, 1975
Closer to the Heart, 1977
Spirit of Radio, 1980
Freewill, 1980
Tom Sawyer, 1981
Red Barchetta, 1981
YYZ, 1981
Limelight, 1981
Subdivisions, 1982
The Analog Kid, 1982 (maybe not as much of a hit as I remember)
[This is where I kinda stopped paying attention, so the following may be a bit off]
Distant Early Warning, 1984
The Big Money, 1985
Time Stand Still, 1987
Show Don't Tell, 1989
Roll the Bones, 1991
[This is where I completely stopped caring, so I'm done]

Not bad for 3 funny looking Canadians.

[dropzone]

I thought it was because they blew chunks, but apparently that does not count against a band like Metallica. Yes, there's a prejudice against "Prog Rock," but blame Dave Marsh. Anyway, Rush is more of a POS Toronto bar band with pretensions of greatness grabbing for the coattails of other Prog Rock bands that are FAR more talented and over the top. Over the top is what made a great Prog Rock band.

And look at who has beat them so far! Rush is not the dirt beneath Solomon Burke's feet!

[kenobi 65]

I found it interesting that the author of the MSNBC article puts ELO in the Prog Rock camp. ELO is one of my favorite bands (along with Yes, the Moody Blues, and Queen), but I never really thought of them in the same way, I think because the core of ELO's career was far more pop and accessible than many of the other progressive groups.

[5-HT]

I'm pretty sure they won't get in because they're terrible

[statij]

Originally Posted by 5-HT

I'm pretty sure they won't get in because they're terrible

Cleary Rush polarizes people. But to say they're terrible is pretty stupid. Hate them all you want, they've still sold millions of records and tickets and have millions of fans because they're not terrible. I can only imagine how shitty I would think some of your favorite music is, but the bands are probably also not terrible just because I don't like them.

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

Whereas The Guess Who, Lighthouse, The Stampeders, Rush and Max Webster/Kim Mitchell, among many others, have not really 'cracked' the US market nor consciousness in quite the same way.

The Guess Who and Rush are a staple on "classic rock" stations in the U.S., though they certainly sit on a lower rung than the big bands in that format (e.g., the Beatles, the Who, the Stones, etc.)

As for the other bands you mention, I've heard of Lighthouse, but couldn't name a song of theirs, and I've never even heard of the others.

[5-HT]

Originally Posted by statij

Cleary Rush polarizes people. But to say they're terrible is pretty stupid. Hate them all you want, they've still sold millions of records and tickets and have millions of fans because they're not terrible. I can only imagine how shitty I would think some of your favorite music is, but the bands are probably also not terrible just because I don't like them.

no, they're awful. luckily, I have amazing taste in music so you wouldn't be able to mock the bands I like.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Metallica are deserving, but there's no way in hell they should get in before Priest. Metallica helped create a subgenre; Judas Priest helped create the genre.

It's bad enough that it took until 2006 for Sabbath to get in, and Iggy Pop/the Stooges still aren't.

The RRHOF is a joke.

I'm not really arguing who should be in there when, just who should be in there, and Metallica should certainly be there. That said, I pretty much agree with your other observations, and the RRHOF is not something I take with any seriousness whatsoever. In a just world, all these bands would be recognized for their contributions, and I'd argue that they certainly are, but not in any formal context like this.

[statij]

Originally Posted by 5-HT

no, they're awful. luckily, I have amazing taste in music so you wouldn't be able to mock the bands I like.

Of course. Pretentious as well as ignorant.