I don’t like Rush. I really don’t like Rush. But not including them in the RARHOF is ridiculous. It isn’t just about innovation, it’s also about talent, and Rush is talented. On the other hand, they will probably get in one day.
Let me preface this to say that I don’t really know much about music. I never had a ‘‘prog’’ phase. I just like what I like.
I discovered Rush when I was 22, in 2005. There is so much about this band that runs against my tastes. First of all, Geddy Lee has a squealy girl voice, and I HATE squealy girl voices. Second, Rush is a heavily instrumental band and most of the stuff I like is very vocally driven. I should strongly dislike them based on these two facts alone.
And yet… here I am, singing their praises. Rush is a damned good band. Listening to their music is a complete experience, like taking a trip to an alien world. They always have something interesting and intelligent to say. I would list them in my top ten favorite.
So I think it’s a shame they are being passed over for RRHOF.
It also seems to me that the meaning of ‘‘rock and roll’’ has broadened considerably over the last several years, so HOFers are definitely in a tight spot. What’s rock and what’s not? Elvis, sure. Aerosmith, sure. What about Weezer? Blink-182? Tool? Coheed and Cambria? How can you decide what’s the best among ‘‘rock and roll’’ if you’re not even really sure what qualifies anymore?
ETA: Okay, if MADONNA, the Queen of Pop, can get into RRHOF, then Rush definitely qualifies. I am a tremendous fan of Madonna, but seriously?
Where do we go from here? Well, if we’re looking solely at recent innovators, I’d add:
-
Brian Eno: T. Rex member, fancypants producer, originator of ambient music, trendsetter, perhaps the reason U2 sounds like U2. Plus, he’s in a lot of crosswords.
-
The Cure: Pretty self-explanatory, I think, but were at the forefront of what used to be “goth” rock and New Wave, incredibly popular, have enjoyed tons of longevity, sounded like no one else before them. Also: funny hair.
-
The Smiths: I mean, if the Cure get in, you gotta throw the Smiths a bone.
-
Nine Inch Nails: Again, from a strictly innovative level, melded electronica with rock and popularized that before a lot of bands were doing it. Fanatical following. New albums surprisingly uncrappy.
-
Fugazi: A definite long shot, but as far as post-punk goes and the D.I.Y. ethos, you’d want to include them. It’s never ever ever happening, but it’s worth a mention, I think.
-
Radiohead: Will be in there sooner or later. Innovative, both commercially and musically, have pushed the envelope consistently, “OK Computer” maybe the best album of the 90s.
There are plenty more. It’s not as if the RRHOF is anything close to all-inclusive.
To me, if you have to have a RRHOF it should be the sort of performers who even non-fans are pretty familiar with. That isn’t really true of Rush. They’ve had more of a modest level of success sustained over a long time rather than ever being stars. Most non-Rush fans probably think “Rush?.. that’s the Tom Sawyer band with the high-pitched singing, right?” And that’s all. Not enough to be a rock & roll great, in my book.
If you put in The Cure and NIN you have to put in Depeche Mode and Ministry.
Both good calls—especially Depeche Mode.
Yeah… personally, I’d rank them in the 10 most important bands of all time if we’re going on influence alone. Oddly, I don’t like many DM songs (and most of the ones I do are later work), but I love a thousand bands that would never have existed without them.
The one good thing is that unlike most keyboard heavy groups, they do get respect.
Jeff Lynne agreed with you. Decades ago, he objected to being compared to “classical-rock” bands like Emerson, Lake and Palmer. In his words, “What we do isn’t classical at all. It’s rock and roll music played with instruments people associate with classical music.”
I think he was right. Bach played on a Moog synthesizer is “classical rock.” A Chuck Berry-esque song plaied with a string section is not.
What about Yngwie Malmsteen?
Don’t be ridiculous. He can be in the hilariously fast sweep-picking hall of fame though.
That’s a fair argument… but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has NEVER followed that standard. It’s filled with acts who were extremely popular with critics, but never had much success with the public at large.
Rush has never been a phenomenon or a commercial juggernaut, but they’ve steadily sold out Madison Square Garden for three decades.
Can Lou Reed say that? Of course not! Yet HE’S in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Rush has only about four songs that are still played steadily on the radio, that’s true. But that’s four MORE songs than Leonard Cohen can claim. But somehow Cohen is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Similarly, if you asked 100 random people on the street to name some songs by Lou Reed or Frank Zappa, most would shrug, and the rest would say “Valley Girl” or “Walk on the Wild Side” THEY’RE in the Hall of Fame, however.
Most people have never even heard of the Ventures (though many could hum a few bars of “Walk, Don’t Run”), Patti Smith (“Oh, wait, was SHE that crazy, ugly b**tch Gilda Radner used to make fun of?”) or the Dells. THEY’RE all in the Hall of Fame.
Even Frankie Valli and the 4 Seasons are in!
I know this is kind of a hijack, but it’s a bit of a pet-peeve of mine.
Genesis post Peter Gabriel had a number of albums in relatively the same style/quality of their first handful of albums. And, they had one more lineup change before things really started to turn away from the early Genesis sound.
I won’t argue that Phil Collins didn’t take the band into a very different direction eventually, but to divide Genesis into Gabriel/Collins, Legit/PopBallad eras is not fair to Phil Collins, and ignores two or three incredible post-Gabriel, prog albums by Genesis.
Fun fact: I’ve only ever heard one Genesis song (I Can’t Dance), and I’ve never heard an Emerson, Lake & Palmer song.
How did you manage that? No “Invisible Touch”? Or “Throwing it All Away”? Or perhaps “Tonight, Tonight, Tonight”?
Don’t know. I’m 26.
Throwing it All Away sounds vaguely familiar. I might have heard one or two and not known they were Genesis songs, I suppose. I mean, Phil Collins’ voice is instantly recognisable, but Peter Gabriel’s isn’t.
(As a side note, there’s a “This American Life” about Phil Collins and “Against All Odds” and breakups that is patently amazing.)
The article actually doesn’t really answer anything. It explains the nomination process, but doesn’t actually say anything about why Rush isn’t in.
The simple fact is that “rock critics” have always believed that they are the sole experts who know what makes a “hit”, and they’re simply offended by the fact that Rush continues to be successful while not conforming to the established formulas. These are the people who thought Rush’s 1980 song “The Spirit of Radio” was a cheerful celebration of music on the radio, never realizing that the band was actually mocking them.
Also, to those who complain about Geddy Lee’s “screechy” voice: Have you listened to any of their stuff that’s more recent than 1981? Geddy stopped screeching a very long time ago, and his voice has improved greatly with age.
Lot of the 80s Genesis can easily be mistaken for Phil Collins solo. (Although I think Peter Gabriel is pretty recognizable, Peter-Gabriel-era Genesis is pretty hard to come by on the radio. I think “Lamb Lies Down on Broadway” is the only one I ever hear on the radio.)
Nitpick: Brian Eno was in Roxy Music, not T. Rex.
And yes, Rush should be in, and I’m not a fan. But then, I also think Husker Du and The Replacements should be in, and that ain’t gonna happen either.
woodstockbirdybird:Ugh. Good nitpick. Total brainfart.
Also, I see you like Minneapolis. Both those bands would deserve mention if an actual RRHOF instead of the joke we’ve got.