Yes, I said that the post just previous to yours.
How about they get in only if (for the most part) they wrote, played and sung their own material?
You’re proposing a Hall Of Fame that’s minus Elvis?
Define “most part”.
I have no use for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame either, so I just ignore it entirely. Works like a charm.
Lemme give you a hint for visiting the Rock Hall: I’ve been there twice. The first time, years ago, I was going pretty much just to say that I had gone, and I found it quite boring. The second time, I had a dozen middle-schoolers with me, and had a great time. It was just so much fun hearing them repeatedly saying “Wow, this old music is really good!”.
As for admission criteria, there should probably be some sort of minimum requirements for entry based on popularity (and length of popularity), and some sort of auto-include criteria at the extreme upper end, but everywhere in between that (very broad) range, it should just be chosen by voting of some large, diverse group. Membership in the voting body probably shouldn’t just be thrown open to anyone who wants to join, but should be open to anyone who wants to join who meets some easily-met criteria, like anyone who makes a living writing about music.
Here’s something that’s true for every Hall of Fame in the world.
The people in it aren’t necessarily equal.
Some selections are no-brainers. Some are just a smidge over the line. Some are in there for one outstanding burst of creativity, others are there for the length of their careers. Some are there for political reasons, just as some aren’t. The presence of selections who don’t meet your criteria have no bearing on the ones who do. It’s impossible for one to lower or devalue the other.
This is true for the current RnR Hall of Fame and it would be equally true for adaher’s version and Just Asking Questions’ one.
Besides. Neither of you know enough about the full historic body of music to make the call. Probably only a handful of people in world do, if that many. You’re wrong and you’re wrong and I’m wrong and they’re wrong because we’re all too ignorant to be right.
This is the sane approach.
I will destroy your argument with two words: Black Sabbath
One word counter: Aerosmith (referencing point 1)
I can fix the whole thing with one rule:
Quit inducting five bands every year!
Think about it this way. Artists who released their first recording in 1991 became eligible for the Hall this year. Do you think there were five Hall-worthy acts that got their start in that year? Probably not. And that’s true for every year. They’re adding bands to the Hall at a faster rate than great bands are being formed. That means they have to be lowering the standard for inclusion. Next year, bands from 1992 will become eligible; but there won’t be five great bands from 1992, so they’ll dip into the backlog. Bands that weren’t considered good enough before (even though they were eligible) will suddenly be good enough so that there can be a full class at the induction ceremony and concert.
Start over again if you want, but if you’re adding great bands faster than they can be created, you’re going to have the same problem all over again.
Thing is, they are overlooking great bands too. Deep Purple was overlooked for way too long, the Scorpions and Journey still aren’t in, no Bon Jovi.
it should of been in either Memphis or Detroit …
Every year I drive my daughter up to Cleveland to visit the R&R HoF. We make a mini-vacation out of it. The night before, we eat at the Hard Rock Cafe. And then the next day we visit it.
We both enjoy it, but I am also annoyed on the selection criteria on who gets inducted.
Take Joan Jett, for example - a very mediocre guitarist/musician who has never written a song - was inducted in 2015. But Jethro Tull? Nope. :dubious: By any objective standard, the talent possessed by Tull is many orders of magnitude greater than the talent possessed by Jett.
And don’t even get me started on Sonic Youth, which (IMO) should be inducted yesterday.
Now some people thinking I’m joking about this, but I’m completely serious: The Residents are more than worthy of being inducted.
If you overlooked a great band, then sure, you can include them once you realize that. But a set number per year still doesn’t make sense. On the other hand, maybe sometimes there really was a really great year which produced more than five-- Always inducting five at a time means that a deserving band is guaranteed to have to wait more than they deserve.
And here is a perfect illustration. You have your POV which is totally cool. But Jett wrote a bunch of hit songs that are still getting a lot of play today - Bad Reputation was the theme song for the beloved Freaks and Geeks, and I Hate Myself For Loving You morphed into Waiting all day for Sunday Night, as in football. More importantly she influenced SO many players that she is looked at as the Patron Saint of Riot Grrl bands. Totally deserves her spot.
It’s imperfect and silly and I look at it as a way to have interesting discussions about music and who’s worthy of respect and why.
And the thought of Journey in there makes me throw up in my mouth a little. ;).
Or The Temptations? Or the Shangri-Las?
Well, it is called the Hall of FAME.
Yep, it’s not called the hall of record sales.
I’d make an argument for Blur, Massive Attack, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and perhaps St. Etienne or Cypress Hill (since “rock” appears to have a very expansive definition in “Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.”) They’d all make my personal Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, at least. But point taken (at least two of those aren’t really “rock and roll” and St. Etienne probably is not as famous as the rest, at least stateside, and Blur probably isn’t as important here in the US as it was in the UK). A fixed number is a bit much. Perhaps it should be more like the baseball hall of fame where you need a certain %age of the vote and whoever makes it, makes it.