RUSH wasn't inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame until 2013. Why so late?

The band RUSH was initially eligible for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (RaRHofF) in 1998 but was not inducted until 2013.

I never “got” that other than hearing some murmurings regarding Rolling Stone magazine.

The most appropriate comment that I ever heard about what RUSH should do about the fact of why they weren’t in the RaRHoF:

On Steven Colbert’s show (maybe ten or so years ago) while Colbert was interviewing Geddy and Alex, Colbert touched on this very issue. Geddy and Alex were very graceful when asked why RUSH was not in the RaRHoF. Alex and Geddy indicated that they have the greatest fans in the whole world and also indicatied that they really did not know why they were not in the RaRHof. So Colbert replied that RUSH should name their next album, “This is Bullshit!”

So, why do you suppose that RUSH was not inducted into the RaRHoF until 2013?

Diversity? Already too many white guy bands inducted.

Disclaimer: I am only a casual listener, and not very knowledgeable, but:

Taking a quick look at the inductees, Yes and ELO weren’t inducted until 2017, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer still aren’t in. At a guess, the selectors don’t really consider “prog rock” to be proper Rock and Roll?

There are a lot of performers inducted that I personally don’t think of as Rock and Roll performers, but I’m not a selector.

Well, three theories here -

  1. Rush produced albums for decades, but their window of AOR/sales popularity was really pretty narrow, a little over a decade in the US. Rush discography - Wikipedia
  2. It’s prog, Hilary. A lot of people hate prog. They’re misguided, but they do.
  3. Finally, the band didn’t do themselves any favors with critics, who I’d argue are on average liberal, by embracing Ayn Rand - hell, saying part of 2112 was inspired by her. They spent years backing away from that, and I actually think that was the biggest part of their non-induction. It requires a substantial majority to get in (51% minimum, but only the top vote-getters), and all you have to do is alienate a small subset of the voters and your odds will be low to non-existent.

It took 15 years for them to scrape up enough people to vote for them?

If voting went my way they still wouldn’t be in. And I am not alone in that feeling. So it took time for the voters to change or to change their minds.

Usually when that happens its because Jann Wenner hates them.

Because there were many better bands ahead of them.

To expand on the Jann Wenner hypothesis (which I’ve heard a number of times):

  • Wenner, founder of Rolling Stone, is also a founder of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and his tastes and preferences are believed to hold a certain amount of sway over the Hall’s voters
  • Wenner apparently does not like progressive rock, and, for many years, this bias was said to have informed coverage of prog bands in Rolling Stone

The “anti-prog” bias in the Hall, if there is or was one, appears to have lessened over the past few years, with the induction of the bands that @gdave noted.

As others have mentioned, the RRHOF seems to have a bias against prog rock. This is why Jethro Tull isn’t in, which is a damn crime, IMO.

Moved to Cafe as a better fit for the thread then IMHO.

This is just housekeeping, no issue at all.

Cafe: Our salon for art, drama, literature, movies, music, comics, cuisine – all the artistic disciplines – if it’s about creativity, entertainment, or leisure, it goes here.

Point very well taken.

This is a huge stretch on my part, but my faves, Kansas, (third tier?) Prog Rockers) aren’t in and may never get in. Relatively low Kansas album sales sales would probably explain most of it, though.

Other than Dust in the Wind, Carry on Wayward Son and Point of Know Return. (still getting some rotation on AOR radio), Kansas is an acquired taste (YMMV) but much loved by their hard core fans (some of whom I seem to see in the really good seats at every semi-local show.)

I thought this was more about politics.

You better flee.

On the Prog Rock part, look how late Yes was let in. They were a major group with some of the best talent in Rock History. It took until 2017.

Fundamentally, there seem to be four “ways in” for a group to be voted into the R&RHOF:

  • An extended record of success (a lot of hit singles and albums, general popularity)
  • Being generally perceived as a key influencer on later acts, especially if their actual body of work was small (see: the Sex Pistols, the Velvet Underground)
  • Having a strong, vocal fan base who campaigns for their inclusion (see: Rush, Kiss)
  • Being the top vote-getter in the “fan vote” – note that the fan vote generates only one ballot (among several thousand) in the annual election, but as it seems that nearly every performer which tops the fan vote gets in, I have begun to suspect that at least some of the other voters pay attention to who the fans are voting for

Because every time Wenner was told he had to come up with the list of names, he said, “oh, no rush.” So they crossed them off by mistake.

Because they were waiting for 2112.


per Crafter Man:
As others have mentioned, the RRHOF seems to have a bias against prog rock. This is why Jethro Tull isn’t in, which is a damn crime, IMO.

This is also (tangentially, though) perhaps of interest:

In 1989, (the very first year that the Best Hard Rock/Metal (Performance Vocal or Instrumental category) was awarded at the Grammys,) Jethro Tull/Crest of a Knave was awarded Best Hard Rock/Metal.

However, methinks (IMHO) that there is a high likelihood that there may never be a Prog Rock category at the Grarmmys

I distinctly recall that, and the howls of derision from metal fans, stating that it demonstrated that the Grammys had no idea of what was actually metal (or even hard rock).

Yeah I remember that. Hilarious.

No Guff!

I remembered it EXACTLY like that (YMMV)

Note that the Moody Blues & Roxy Music also had a long wait. You’d think purely on the “influence” side of things that the Roxies would have been in far earlier. As said it was just a pathetic case of institutional bias.