I have no problem with changing the name to reflect what it really is but as long as it’s called the R&R HoF it’s a joke to me. My 2¢
Totally right there with ya. I wouldn’t induct him into my RRHoF, but I also wouldn’t induct most of the folks in it now.
Al is one of the few artists to achieve a Top 40 hit on the Billboard Hot 100 in each of the last four decades (1980s–2010s**).** The only other artists to do that are Madonna, Michael Jackson, and U2.
Plus, he leads the greatest cover band in history. There’s not a genre of music he can’t play.
Personally, I’m holding out for a Super Bowl Halftime Show.
That’s like people saying that America isn’t a democracy but a constitutional republic. It’s true that the founders didn’t like the term democracy, but America has since become the dictionary definition of democracy.
It’s also true that in the early days in Britain, what the Beatles did was referred to as, wait for it, beat music. Rock as a term gained popularity a couple of years later, around 1964.
But not in America. From their first massive appearance in 1964, they were the dictionary definition of rock music. And so was the rest of the British Invasion, including Herman’s Hermits.
The definition of rock music has been changing; we’ve had lots of threads arguing what is or isn’t rock. I listen to the Beatles today and think they’re a genre of their own. Somehow they managed to influence everybody without anybody truly sounding like them (including Badfinger and Klaatu). Makes no difference to the RHoF. If it did, half the first class shouldn’t have been there.
I suspect that @RickJay 's point isn’t that the Beatles weren’t “rock music,” it’s that they weren’t technically “rock and roll” – which, technically, is true of the vast majority of the artists in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
From a narrow, technical definition of “rock and roll,” it was a popular music genre which peaked in the 1950s, and largely died out by the time of the Beatles, having evolved into (or replaced by) rock music, rhythm & blues, etc. as the predominant forms of popular music in the U.S.
That said, a lot of music fans still use “rock” and “rock & roll” interchangeably.
Weird Al has parodied many a rock song, therefore he rocks.
I’m a big Madonna fan but once she was inducted it became pretty clear to me they are broadening their focus to include any major artist.
As they should do with Al. He innovated and redefined parody. He made it its own thing. He’s an incredibly talented and creative musician.
Plus the obligatory “all creative work is derivative” etc.
(Sidebar: I was watching a Weird Al reaction video the other day and the reviewer read it as “Weird A-I” with an I instead of an L. Now I can’t unsee it - and given his interest in current events, I imagine he’s got an A-I song coming in the future.)
“Is it real…or is it Yankovic?”
Sure. Let him in. If he wants.
ROCK music and ROCK AND ROLL are different things.
Sometimes I think they should just call it Music Hall of Fame and be done with it.
And the difference is…?
If Weird Al does make it (and why not, I say), I think he should perform a parody of “Let 'Em In” at the induction ceremony with as many artists as he can fit into a 3-minute song.
The idea of a slew of famous artists performing his version of their songs is incredibly appealing.
Of course many of those have to be getting on in years. Maybe it would be young artists instead.
Look upthread:
But using that very restrictive definition, the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame would be mostly empty.
Well, exactly, which was @RickJay 's point in the first place:
Or we could accept a slightly broader definition of Rock And Roll?
A lot of people do, and as I noted a few posts ago, it’s not uncommon at all for music fans to use “rock” and “rock & roll” more-or-less interchangeably. And, I suspect that a lot of people don’t know that there is a technical, “musicologist” definition of the “rock & roll” genre, which is distinct from the broader “rock music.”
How broad to make the definition of “rock & roll,” as it pertains to the Hall of Fame, is an eternal point of debate and flame wars when the nominees, and the inductees, are announced: “They are NOT rock and roll!!!”
In my HoF, one of the primary requirements for entry is this: Did this act, at least initially, make the listeners’ parents nervous, scare them a bit, make them uneasy. The less this is so for a given performer, the more they need to move the needle otherwise—e.g., influence, critical acclaim, brilliant composition, etc.
The spirit of R&R should be rebellion, a bit of danger, a “fuck you” to what has been. So, Rap, for sure, belongs (some of it, anyway). Dolly, whom I love, does not. The Sex Pistols, yep. Bon Jovi? Nope.
And Weird Al, a delightful performer, doesn’t belong. As mentioned, the same could be said for most of those loads in the Hall.
My point is that complaining about “well I don’t think this is rock and roll” is a funny complaint when most of the acts people think are “Rock and roll” technically aren’t. It has clearly never at any point been the intent of the RRHOF to restrict induction - or, for that matter, the museum’s exhibits - to guitar-driven rock music or rock and roll. Literally among the first slate of inductees were Aretha Franklin, James Brown, and the Supremes, so they were already accepting that soul, blues and Motown pop was in the realm of discussion. Frankie Valli and Four Seasons were inducted early on and they’re no more rock than Madonna is.