That’s my take on it as well. The Monkees were a concoction of television producers (or a “fake band” as some have called them), but they were the first AFAIK, and they had a WILDLY successful real-world presence. That in itself is quite notable. And it’s not as if they weren’t really musicians.
I don’t see why their impact is somehow diminished because they were “cast,” rather than getting together in one of the member’s garages. Nobody minds Oscars going to actors who don’t create their roles and write their own dialogue.
There’s always a lot of complaining when an award goes to someone who is perceived as not technically proficient. But as Chronos points out, it’s not an award for skill.
For what it’s worth, I’m a classical music guy and couldn’t care less who’s in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Just wanted to step back in here and say how interesting and enlightening this discussion has been. (It’s also kind of entertaining to see people vehemently insisting they don’t care who’s in the HoF. Heh.)
I’ve been a Rush fan for almost as long as I’ve been a Monkees fan. For years and years, Rush insisted that it wasn’t that big of a deal that they weren’t even considered for the RnRHoF. Then the HoF started doing fan polls to see who the fans thought should get in, and Rush won handily in the very first one. Neil Peart’s acceptance speech started with… “We’ve been saying for a long time that this isn’t a big deal, but you know? It kinda is.”
The RnRHoF matters. Sure there’s been some debatable inductees, but even so it’s a recognition for their work and artistry that ultimately means more than record sales. Every artist of every variety would like to make millions of dollars with their work, but if they’re true artists what they want more than anything is recognition that what they produced meant something, and will be remembered after they’ve gone the way of the dodo. This is what the HoF does for rock musicians. As long as it stands, it commemorates these artists for their contributions to the art form.
Are all the inductees great musicians? No. Frankly, I don’t feel they have to be. Sometimes art is about pure entertainment. I honestly expect that “Weird Al” Yankovic will be in the HoF one day. (I believe he already qualifies.) If you take away the entertainment quality from a musician, you take away their art, and you’re just left with an intellectual curiosity. You can say what you like about the Monkees, but one thing they always were is entertaining.
I certainly agree about Rush being in the HoF. Really, though, I’d just like to see some kind of clearer standards. Sports Halls of Fame uniformly include players with great stats. Musicians have stats too, some which are easy to measure: longevity, record sales, chart success, tour gross, and some which are harder, but still easy to demonstrate: crossover appeal(the band doesn’t just occupy a genre niche), and influence(how many bands did they spawn through their innovation.)
If the Dave Clark 5 is in, then the Monkees should be. They introduced a huge number of younger fans to music and bridged the divide between rock and pop.
Hits like “Stepping Stone”, “Last Train” and “I’m a Believer” were huge because they were great songs recorded by excellent musicians, backed by great studio pros.